Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Nigeria

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to wards peace in the Nigerian Civil War and the acceptance by both sides of a Commonwealth peace-keeping force.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent progress towards a settlement of the Nigerian Biafran conflict.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding his efforts to secure a cease-fire in the Nigerian civil war.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent steps to attempt to end the war in Nigeria.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has taken, or now proposes to take, an initiative designed to achieve the acceptance by Nigeria of an international peace-keeping force.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has been in Lagos for the past week continuing our dis-

cussions with the Federal Government about the possibilities of progress to wards the end of the fighting and more effective relief. Lord Shepherd, who is having another meeting with General Gowan today, will be returning very shortly to report to me. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has visited Addis Ababa and has discussed these problems with His Majesty the Emperor of Ethiopia in the light of Her Majesty's Government's intention to assist the Organisation of African Unity in any way possible. All concerned know that we are ready to help in any way to bring about negotiations. We have already said we would contribute to a Commonwealth peace-keeping force, should both sides desire one.

Mr. Tilney: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the Under-Secretary's reported visit to the Vatican? Is there any chance of a Christmas cease fire, temporary though that may be? What chance is there of the Federal Government offering positions for some form of peace-keeping force unilatterally, in their territory?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot say anything definite about the possibilities of a Christmas truce, but this is, of course, one way in which one might get the beginnings of a ceasefire. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, about a peace keeping force in Federal territory, I believe that, if a ceasefire and some meeting of the parties could be arranged, it would be possible to make progress on these lines.

Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lord Brockway and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), have, with great courage, just been to Biafra, and that they report that Colonel Ojukwu is prepared to accept an immediate ceasefire by both sides, and also the idea that there should be a United Nations peace-keeping force in the whole area?

Mr. Stewart: As to a United Nations peace-keeping force, we would gladly co-operate in any peace-keeping force which could be arranged, whether it were Commonwealth or Commonwealth and other countries. At present, it has not proved at all easy to make any progress through United Nations channels on this.
I know, of course, that my hon. and right hon. Friends have made this visit and I am hoping to hear from them about it. However, I am afraid that I must notice that Biafra Radio, on 12th December, announced that, if there were a ceasefire, they would insist on going to the conference table as a separate, independent nation. That is to say, that condition is still attached.

Mr. Fisher: Since it often seems to be the case that it is Colonel Ojukwu—this applied in the case of the land corridor and day relief flights—who is the stumbling block, would it be worth inviting the African States, Zambia and Tanzania, which have recognised Biafra, to appeal to him to allow an international force between the combatants in this area?

Mr. Stewart: I should like to consider that suggestion. We are trying to find any way in which we can make progress. It is certainly true that it is the attitude of Colonel Ojukwu that blocks so many possibilities.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would my right hon. Friend accept from all of us that we welcome the initiative of the Under-Secretary's visit? Will the Government give first priority to the desperate need for a cease-fire? May I call my right hon. Friend's attention to two new dangers that might have calamitous results in the near future? First of all, the supplies of home-grown food—yams and cassave—are running out very rapidly and there is already an outbreak of measles which may amount to an epidemic in the near future. We are assured by doctors, responsible people, in Biafra, that, if this happens, it will have a devastating effect on already under-nourished and half-starved children. May I ask the Government to use their influence with both sides, in which we will join them, in getting a cease-fire, to avoid what could be a terrible human tragedy early in the new year?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of his supplementary question. I am sure that he is right to lay the chief emphasis on a cease-fire and relief—relief against famine and relief against disease. The House knows the measures

we have taken on relief and what the difficulties are in getting the materials where they are required. My right hon. and noble Friend was concerned with a cease-fire. It is not the first attempt we have made. This is a continuous process; and we shall continue to do all we can.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take further steps to bring about an international cessation of arms supplies to the combatants in the Nigerian civil war.

Mr. M. Stewart: As the House knows, we should be ready to co-operate in any enforceable international arms embargo which could be arranged in the context of an agreement to end the fighting.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend, in order to bring this about, now issue a public and specific invitation to the Governments of France, Portgual and the Soviet Union to join Britain in trying to bring about an international embargo on the supply of arms to both sides in the Nigerian civil war?

Mr. Stewart: We have already raised this matter with some of the countries supplying arms to either side. The Russians made it clear that they would continue to support the Federal Government in any event. Those who are supplying Colonel Ojukwu deny that they are doing so. That is why it seems that in this situation if an embargo is to be effective it has to be policed at the point of entry into Nigeria, and that is why I said that it must be seen together with the possibilities of a cease-fire.

Mr. Lane: In view of the great concern in the House and of many of our constituents, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Prime Minister to try to put the Nigerian question at the top of the agenda for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting in January?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think I can preempt the agenda for the conference at this stage.

Imports (Deposits)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from fellow Governments of the


European Free Trade Area Association about the deposits required against imports recently announced by Her Majesty's Government.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frederick Mulley): We have had no formal representations from our European Free Trade Association partners. Discussion of our measures is continuing in the European Free Trade Association Council.

Mr. Tilney: When will the tribunal decide whether our action is legal? Has not the action of Her Majesty's Government undermined the concept of E.F.T.A.?

Mr. Mulley: I disagree very strongly with that suggestion. As the House has been informed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade fully discussed the scheme at the end of the Vienna Conference, and it was generally agreed that we had to take some step about imports and that the measure proposed was perhaps the least damaging in this context. As to the date, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by a tribunal. This question is being discussed in the E.F.T.A. Council. I could not give a date when the Council will conclude that consideration.

Commonwealth Countries (Foreign Secretary's Visits)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits he proposes to make to Commonwealth countries in the coming 12 months.

Mr. M. Stewart: As the hon. Member knows, I have recently returned from a visit to Pakistan and India. I am now considering my programme for the coming year.

Mr. Marten: I assumed that the Secretary of State would be considering his programme. The Question asks him what visits he is proposing. Anyhow, assuming that he goes to Commonwealth countries, could he sound out the Commonwealth countries on the proposal for an Atlantic Free Trade Area, which is receiving more and more consideration in many countries?

Mr. Stewart: That is another question.

European Unity

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the Harmel proposals for European co-operation.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further preparations he is making for a meeting of European Prime Ministers for advancing European unity in fields not covered by the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Mulley: M. Harmel's proposals for advancing European unity in fields out side the Treaties of Rome have been the subject of recent exchanges with a number of Governments in preparation for further discussion at the next Ministerial meeting of Western European Union on 6th and 7th February.

Mr. Marten: Does that Answer amount to "No"? Has there been any progress at all? The Question asks for a statement on progress. It was 10 weeks ago that these proposals were made. Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to what progress has been made, particularly on the proposal to increase co-operation in monetary affairs?

Mr. Mulley: It was clear at the end of the previous W.E.U. meeting, where M. Harmel made these proposals, that the next definitive step would be a further discussion at the next meeting of Western European Union. In the interval between the two meetings, officials of many countries are concerned in working out their proposals. It was never envisaged that there would be further meetings before that I have announced for February.

Mr. Mayhew: Have not the prospects for a meeting of the type referred to in Question No. 38 improved a little recently? For example, is there not evidence that the Germans would be willing to attend such a meeting? Will my right hon. Friend say plainly that the Government support the idea?

Mr. Mulley: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a suggestion for a Meeting of Prime Ministers. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at The Hague, while we would welcome this proposal, there would be no


point in organising such a meeting until we could have a conference that could produce results. Until the further meeting in the context of Western European Union, which we believe to be the right context for these discussions, it would be too soon to organise such a conference.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his discussions with the Argentine Government about the future of the Falkland Islands are now concluded; and with what result.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit to the Falkland Islands by the Minister of State.

35 and 36. Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands;

(2) what further conversations he has had with the Government of Argentina about the Falklands and other matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the future of the Falk land Islands and on the discussions held by the Minister of State with the islanders.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will exclude the question of Sovereignty over the Falkland Isles from the agenda of discussions with the Government of Argentina.

Mr. Body: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper on the negotiations with Argentia about the Falkland Islands.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a White Paper on the talks which the Minister of State had on his recent visit to the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government have not sought and are not seeking to persuade the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to accept Argentine sovereignty.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the Falkland Islands.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to my statement, and to the Answers I gave to questions on this matter on 11th December, and subsequently in the debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 775, c. 424–34 and 608–13.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that Answer mean, then, that negotiations involving the sovereignty of the Islands are still continuing? Does that mean that the Government have not grasped the fact that public opinion in this country simply will not permit them either to bribe or bully the Falklanders out of the Commonwealth and into the dominion of a foreign Power?

Mr. Stewart: The answer to the first part of the question is, "Yes, Sir"; these negotiations are continuing, as I have often explained to the House. The answer to the second part of the question is that there has not been and will not be any attempt to bribe, pressurise or persuade the Falklanders against their judgment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: In the interests of good relations with Argentina, would it not be best to be frank now and make it clear that sovereignty cannot be part


of any agreement in prospect, thus obviating a serious misunderstanding later?

Mr. Stewart: I have stated our position so often and so clearly that I do not think the Argentine Government are under any misunderstanding.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Secretary of State aware that in fact he does not state the position clearly? He creates confusion and dismay by every statement that is made from the Treasury bench. Was it not folly to lead Argentina to think that sovereignty might be transferred irrespective of the right of self-determination? Will not this do great damage to Anglo-Argentine relations?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman asked that Question during the debate, and I answered it then. We have made it clear that the issue of sovereignty is under discussion but that we would not make a cession of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.

Mr. Jackson: Has any progress been made on the purely practical question of communications between the Falkland Islands and Buenos Aires?

Mr. Stewart: That is another very important issue in the discussions, but the discussions are not yet concluded.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that since our debates the Argentine Government have issued a statement saying that the sovereignty of these Islands should be transferred to them without further consultation with the islanders and without the consent of the islanders? Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that this report appeared in the Daily Express on Saturday? Is it a true report or a false report?

Mr. Stewart: It is a true report, but it adds nothing new to the already known position. This was why I explained to the House in my statement that there is a divergence of view between the Argentine Government and ourselves.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it true, as is suggested, that there was this proposed sell-out of the Falkland Islanders in order to bring off a big arms deal—for the Government to sell arms to the Argentine?

Mr. Stewart: No. The hon. Gentleman keeps making up new fairy tales of his own. In any case, there is a later Question about this.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As negotiations are to continue, can the Secretary of State say whether any agreement that is reached with the Argentine will be put before the Falkland Islanders before it is signed?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir; I think I can say that, although this still lies in the future, because the main purpose of my noble Friend's visit recently was to describe progress and explain the way the Government were handling this matter.

Departmental Officials (First Class Air Travel)

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department are, under regulations, entitled at public expense to first-class air travel tickets; and how many such tickets were issued in the last convenient 12 months.

Mr. Mulley: 174 officers in Grades 1–3 of the Diplomatic Service are so en titled. The facility is also extended to 344 officers of Grade 4 for air journeys lasting more than four hours.
During the 12 months ending September 1968, 265 single and 368 return tickets were issued to these officers and their dependants.

Sir H. Harrison: I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. Is not that a large number of civil servants entitled to the concession? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the prestige of this country would be better served if Members of Parliament called upon to go on official delegations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union were given first-class travel? If he agrees about that but does not want extra expense, will the right hon. Gentleman see the Chancellor of the Exchequer about cutting off a few of those he has named at the lowest level?

Mr. Mulley: Travel arrangements for C.P.A. and I.P.U. delegations are largely matters for the organisations concerned, but I shall look into the question. Any change in the first-class travel entitlement


of civil servants would apply to the Home Civil Service as well as the Diplomatic Service and would require a change of regulations. This would be a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I should stress that most of the diplomats going on these journeys usually have to enter negotiations very soon after they arrive, and the advantage of being able to work on the journey is not inconsiderable.

Persian Gulf States (External Affairs and Defence)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations are now taking place with the States in the Persian Gulf about the arrangements for their external affairs and defence after 1971.

Viscount Lambton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations now taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the Trucial States and Bahrain relevant to their defences and status after 1971.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): As I told the hon. Gentleman on 1st April, we are engaged in discussion with the States concerned about the implications of the decision on with drawal.—[Vol. 762, c. 2–3.]

Mr. Campbell: While these States should be given every encouragement to work together for a stable future, will the Government none the less make clear that the United Kingdom will continue to help preserve peace in the area and to prevent any disruption of oil supplies?

Mr. Roberts: I agree that the States themselves should be encouraged to come to the right decision about the form of union or association which will suit them. We have indicated to them that we stand ready at all times, at their request, to advise and help them in achieving this aim.
We consider that the best way to main tain peace and stability in the area lies in enabling these States to stand on their own feet and also in bringing together their more powerful neighbours in an association and in support of the States once they have formed a union.

Mr. Mayhew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in all the circumstances, developments in the Gulf since the Government's decision to withdraw have been hopeful and constructive, and it is regrettable that uncertainty should have been created by the irresponsible statements of the Opposition that they will upset it if they are returned to power?

Mr. Roberts: It is a most encouraging and promising fact that, since our announcement that we would withdraw before the end of 1971, the Rulers and the peoples have come together and have had discussions which progressively show a constructive intention. It is true that any suggestion that we shall remain in the Gulf in a military posture after 1971 cannot assist the discussions which are now proceeding so helpfully there.

International Court of Justice

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following his official statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 19th October, 1968, what new proposals he has regarding the with drawing of United Kingdom reservations to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: It is proposed that a revised Declaration, substantially reducing our existing reservations to acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, should be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General on 1st January, 1969. As on previous occasions, the text will be published as a White Paper.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: First, does that need legislation? Second, has any Communist country accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, with or without reservations?

Mr. Roberts: I regret that I should need notice of the second part of that supplementary question. On the first part, I am advised that it does not need legislation, but the House will be in a position to debate the matter.

Suez Canal

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he is


taking to secure the release of British ships detained in the Suez Canal.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take further steps to obtain the release of British ships detained in the Suez Canal.

Viscount Lambton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations to free the British ships at present contained by the Egyptian Government in the Suez Canal.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest efforts to reach agreement with the United Arab Republic and Israel on ways in which the ships in the Suez Canal could be released.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Since my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 18th November, we have had further contacts in Cairo with the United Arab Republic authorities and in New York with a number of interested parties. We have also kept in touch with the commercial interests involved.—[Vol. 773, c. 867–9.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: To what extent does silting now act as an impediment to the freeing of these ships? Second, what action is proposed to be taken, either by the United Nations or by the maritime Powers, to free these ships? Third, what compensation will lie against the United Arab Republic for the illegal detention of the ships?

Mr. Roberts: I should like the hon. Gentleman to put a Question down about silting. Information about the technical position is not immediately available to me today. As regards United Nations intervention, as I have said, the United Nations could not intervene here for the purpose of physical clearance without first going to the Security Council, which would set in train a debate which might exacerbate the situation and make more difficult the already difficult task which the special representative, Dr. Jarring, has.
As regards compensation, soon after the end of the June war, Her Majesty's Gov-

ernment indicated to the U.A.R. and to Israel that they held in reserve their power to claim compensation for damage or loss sustained by the Government of by United Kingdom nationals.
Finally, as regards the position of the maritime Powers, a shipowners' committee was formed in Amsterdam in July, and this has been empowered to negotiate with the Cairo authorities with a view to the clearance of the Canal. A representative of the committee is now engaged in these negotiations in Cairo.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not an Adjournment debate. Answers, however praiseworthy, must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman recall any previous British Government which acquiesced in the wrongful detention of British ships for 18 months?

Mr. Roberts: We can all call to mind the fiasco of Suez.

Middle East (Security Council Resolution)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in collaboration with the Russian Government and other interested parties to implement the Security Council resolution of 22nd November, 1967, calling for freedom of navigation throughout inter national waters in the Middle East, including the Suez Canal.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The resolution dealt with all the problems raised by the Arab-Israel war, including freedom of navigation. These problems are closely inter-related and seem unlikely to be solved outside a general settlement in the area. We actively support Dr. Jarring's efforts to promote such a settlement.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Are there not common interests here for Britain and the Soviet Union, and could not both use their respective influences? Second, could my right hon. Friend give the House an estimate of the total cost to us of the closure of the Canal, with particular reference to the balance of payments figures?

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: All countries have, as we have, an interest in the


speedy clearance of the Canal. It is possible that the permanent members of the Security Council will at some stage consider this as a matter of particular importance to them, and one of the four is the Soviet Union. As regards losses to us sustained since the closure of the Canal, the estimate which has been made is that in the last six months of 1967 the loss to us on the balance of trade ran at about £20 million a month, but, as commerce has adapted itself to the changed situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—the loss has declined to about £.5 million a month, which is serious enough in all conscience.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers must be reasonably brief.

Nigeria (Mr. Joseph Combes)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet received the report from the High Commissioner for Nigeria on his inquiries into Mr. Joseph Combes's claim for compensation first made against the High Commission in 1966.

Mr. Mulley: The High Commissioner for Nigeria has now received authority from Lagos for the settlement in full of

Mr. Joseph Combes's: claim and I under stand that a remittance was posted to Mr. Combes on 10th December.

Mr. Hunt: I am most grateful for that reply, as will be my constituent.

Mediterranean (Naval Task Force)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support proposals made in the Western European Union for the establishment of a European naval task force, centred on a British carrier or amphibious ship, in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Mulley: Our maritime forces in the Mediterranean are declared to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which is currently studying how to improve the effectiveness of allied forces in the area.

Mr. Griffiths: Does that reply indicate that the right hon. Gentleman has considered the proposal made in W.E.U.

or not? Does not he consider that it would have very definite advantages, in that European vessels in the Mediterranean can undertake tasks that the Sixth Fleet, with its nuclear weapons, cannot so effectively undertake?

Mr. Mulley: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that all member Governments pay great regard to the proposals made by their Parliamentarians in Western European Union. But N.A.T.O. policy is not for us to make unilaterally; it is made in the Alliance as a whole. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, the whole question of the Mediterranean is under study.

Coastal Waters (Soviet Vessels)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will protest to the Soviet Government about the large numbers of Soviet vessels interfering with British and allied naval activity off the coast of Great Britain.

Mr. Mulley: There has so far been no cause for a formal protest to the Soviet Government.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it a fact that a Soviet guided missile ship hove to some distance off the West coast of Scotland not many weeks ago? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the purpose of such Soviet activities are? Does he agree with the British admiral who described them as a "damned nuisance"?

Mr. Mulley: The navy of the Soviet Union, like other navies, is entitled to freedom of passage on the high seas. Its activities off the British coast are closely observed by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Questions of detailed encounters are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

European Economic Community

Mrs. René e Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the recent economic crisis, he will cease to subsidise "Britain in Europe" and other organisations of this type supporting the Common Market.

Mr. Mulley: Since it remains the aim of Her Majesty's Government to join the European Economic Community as a full


member, I consider that this expenditure is fully justified.

Mrs. Short: By the taxpayer, it seems. Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that growing numbers of people inside and outside the House are concerned about the way in which this money is spent largely on organising dinners and luncheons—to keep up the spirits of those concerned, I suppose? How many more rebuffs does my right hon. Friend intend to take before he decides to stop this waste of money?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that a question of changing the Government's foreign and economic policy arises in connection with the relatively small grants for these organisations. These small grants are made to pursue a proper understanding of the British point of view in Europe and to bring our relations with Europe closer. We find them a convenient and useful way of pursuing those objectives.

Mr. Bessell: Is there any precedent for the Government spending money to subsidise propaganda organisations which happen to support the Government's policy?

Mr. Mulley: I would not call them propaganda organisations in support of Government policy. There have been many precedents of small assistance to non-Governmental, non-political organisations being a useful way of encouraging discussion on the matter concerned.

Mr. Jay: Whatever the Government's policy, is not it quite improper for the Foreign Office to use the taxpayers' money to subsidise controversial private propaganda organisations? Could not a very useful economy be made here?

Mr. Mulley: I do not see them as private propaganda organisations. The grants have been paid over a number of years and have been approved in the Estimates each year. There is no question of any hole in the corner business. The Government, like previous Governments, have found this a useful and convenient way of getting our point of view across in Europe.

Antigua (Electrical Power Plant)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs what response he has made to the appeal from the Government of Antigua for assistance on the occasion of the break-down of their electrical power plant on 22nd November.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Her Majesty's Government immediately responded to the Government of Antigua's request for interim help in this internal emergency by using their friendly offices in neighbouring countries. The nearest source of suitable and readily available equipment was Canada and generators were flown from there to operate in a temporary capacity. We explored the possibility of Her Majesty's Forces in the area providing emergency equipment, but this did not prove possible.

Mr. Turton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what Canada sent amounted to 0· 3 megawatt, and that what is required is over 6 megawatts? Is he aware that this grave emergency has continued for 24 days, and that, following the survey by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, Hawker Siddeley have informed the Antigua Government that it could rapidly restore a major part of the power station if the money were forthcoming? Will the British Government help?

Mr. Roberts: We are extremely anxious to help in every possible way, but I do not know whether it would be feasible to extend financial aid in this case. I should like to discuss the matter with representatives of this highly reputable firm, and arrangements are being made for such a discussion to take place at my office.

Mr. Braine: This is not a very satis factory state of affairs. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Trade is sympathetic to the idea of giving help now, for good commercial reasons? Can he give the House an assurance that this will be discussed straight away?

Mr. Roberts: Indeed. Since I was given notice that the Question was raised, I have done my best to look into the details. It is an emergency. It is not a simple situation, but I am anxious that every thing possible should be done, by Government agency if that proves right, to help this excellent firm, which is anxious to put the matter right.

International Institute of Technology in Europe

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will give financial and other support to the proposed International Institute of Technology in Europe, now under consideration at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mr. Mulley: Her Majesty's Government will contribute £10,000 towards the costs of the preparatory year.

Mr. Moonman: That remark will be greeted with some enthusiasm, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that the time has arrived when a White Paper should be prepared to set out the British rô le in European collaboration in science and technology, so that many people will have an indication of exactly how serious our intentions are?

Mr. Mulley: That goes rather further than the original Question. As my hon. Friend knows, the preparatory year for the proposed Institute is a time to try to get the various different ideas sorted out, and we have a number of important points to put to the other countries during this period. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology about a White Paper.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, after the Prime Minister's great speech at Strasbourg about the technological communities he was going to establish, £10,000 is a pretty derisory sum? Following our pulling out of the E.L.D.O. project and the C.E.R.N. reactor, is not it shabby?

Mr. Mulley: It is rather unlike the hon. Gentleman not to have informed himself before asking the question, be cause the proposal, which stems from M. Giscard d'Estaing, is quite different from that of the European technological centre proposed by my right hon. Friend. We have reservations about this later proposal, because it does not fit the ideas of United Kingdom management education and has not been received with great enthusiasm by British industry. That is why we want in the preparatory year to see if we can sort out the differences of approach.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In the context of closer European co-operation, has my right hon. Friend seen a somewhat angry statement from Dr. Luns of the Nether lands about the British Government's reaction to proposals for closer links with the Six? Can he comment on that?

Mr. Mulley: I am not familiar with the exact content of this one of several statements by Dr. Luns. If my hon. Friend will let me have a copy, I will send him my comments.

Latin-American Countries (Technical Co-operation Agreements)

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which other Latin-American countries Her Majesty's Government have concluded agreements on technical or other forms of mutual aid co-operation similar to that concluded with the Republic of El Salvador in June, 1967.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Her Majesty's Government have concluded with Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru agreements or understandings on technical co-operation similar to that concluded with the Republic of El Salvador.

Mr. Hynd: I am sure that many hon. Members and other people in the country will be delighted to hear of this progress, and I hope that it will go still further in other Latin-American countries. With regard to the provision for the extension of scholarships, can my right hon. Friend say whether anything is being done by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that more scholarships will be available to the countries under these agreements?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot say without notice, and I am not sure whether that is a question for me. My right hon. Friend might consider tabling a Question and ascertaining which Minister is responsible for answering it.

Rhodesia

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose in the United Nations the establishment of an independent supervisory and investigatory system for the sanctions policy against Rhodesia.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. George Thomson): I have been asked to reply.
The Security Council Resolution of May, 1968, already contains provisions designed to make the supervision of sanctions more effective.

Mr. Judd: While I welcome the news of increased pressure by the Security Council on the countries from which sanctions busters are operating, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not agree that independent supervisory and investigatory machinery is essential to the success of the sanctions policy?

Mr. Thomson: The step taken by the United Nations in setting up this new machinery was a very important one. The body has held its first meeting. I think we must wait to see how it gets on. I agree with the importance of international supervision if the sanctions policy is to be effective.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: What information have the Government, through the United Nations or directly, about an increase in African unemployment brought about by the sanctions policy?

Mr. Thomson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to table a detailed Question about that.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many South African personnel it is estimated have taken part in security operations in Rhodesia since the unilateral declaration of independence.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of South African police at present operating in Rhodesia.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
I am not in a position to give the House reliable estimates.

Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this totally unacceptable presence indicates the concern not only of the Rhodesian illegal régime but also of the South African Government

about security? Is this not a good reason for reactivating the principle of a direct British presence?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the reasons why we have always felt that the use of force by Britain was the wrong policy. I have recently made representations to the South African Government about the presence of these South African police, and the South African Government are well aware of our views.

Mr. David Steel: In his recent talks with members of the South African Government, did the right hon. Gentleman raise this matter as being one of considerable importance to the relation ship between our two countries?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to alterations to the com position of the Rhodesian Legislature provided that a blocking quarter of directly and popularly elected Africans is secured; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomson: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Paragraph I (ii) of the "Fear less" proposals.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: When the right hon. Gentleman came back from the "Fearless" talks, he said that there was no trouble about this, but when he returned from Salisbury he said, on 18th November, that the Government could not accept it. Will he clarify this important point, even though we recognise that his position is made more difficult by the attitude of the British Prime Minister?

Mr. Thompson: I will try to clarify the point. No difficulty has been caused by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Our position during my discussions in Salisbury was the same as our position in the talks my right hon. Friend had with Mr. Smith on H.M.S. "Fearless". It was Mr. Smith's position which had changed in the interim.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: I take that point of order but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has now prevented another hon. Gentleman from asking a supplementary Question.

United States (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government on the supply of arms to the United States of America for use in Vietnam.

Mr. M. Stewart: There has been no change in our policy since the reply my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 22nd January. Although we do not place any restrictions or conditions on arms sold to the United States, our policy is not to sell arms specifically for use in Vietnam.—[Vol. 757, Col. 10.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Foreign Secretary say precisely what that means? If the United States asks for a consignment of arms plainly for use in Vietnam, will Her Majesty's Government supply them?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. It has not been our policy to do so, as was clear in my Answer. This policy has been operated for some time and has caused no difficulty between us and the United States.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is it not about time that restrictions or qualifications were put on the sale of arms by us to the United States?

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that it would not be right to make an alteration in the policy, particularly at the present stage of negotiations on Vietnam.

Human Rights Convention

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he proposes that citizens of the United Kingdom and of the 21 dependent territories concerned are to have effective recourse under Article 13

of the Human Rights Convention, in view of the fact that facilities to invoke the relevant provision before the competent authority in this country or in the over seas territory are at present lacking.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am satisfied that as required by Article 13 effective remedies would in practice be available for any violation of the Convention which might be established.

Mr. Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how this might be implemented, because there seems to be little point in being a signatory of the convention unless the relevant pro visions can be invoked?

Mr. Roberts: I do not agree that the relevant provisions cannot be invoked. I have still to be convinced that there is any need for the action for which I presume the Question asks.

Mr. Whitaker: Does the practice of detention without trial in Hong Kong com ply with the Human Rights Convention?

Mr. Roberts: There is another Question on the Order Paper relating to that territory.

Anglo-Polish Relations

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Polish relations.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Anglo-Polish relations have been set back by the participation of Poland in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It remains our wish that these relations should develop as fully and constructively as possible. But this depends on mutual confidence, and it is primarily for those who have dispelled this to restore it.

Mr. Moonman: Would my right hon. Friend consider making representations to the Polish Government stressing our anxiety about the student trials which are about to take place and suggesting that the policy is not only the discreditable to that nation but a further element in the dangerous situation between the East and West?

Mr. Roberts: It is not our practice as a Government to make representations about the internal affairs of another Government, and, indeed, it would be counter productive in a case like this for us to


do so. But we lose no opportunity, especially through out representative at the United Nations, of condemning such discriminatory practices.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the great mass of the Polish people are as shocked at what happened in Czechoslovakia as people in this country are?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that is so.

Middle East

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking in order to assist in the securing of a settlement of the current Middle East crisis.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to facilitate an Arab-Israeli settlement in line with the United Nations Security Council resolution of November, 1967.

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken following the Security Council resolution proposing the principles for an Arab-Israeli settlement, and with what success; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer my hon. Friends and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) to my speech in the foreign affairs debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 775, cols. 603–4.]

Mr. Jackson: In connection with the search for a settlement, can my right hon. Friend comment on recent reports that Israel may now be more flexible concerning her claim to annex the whole of Jerusalem?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment on precise aspects of the matter like that. What we have been doing is to urge on all the Governments concerned the action that we believe they could usefully take to help Dr. Jarring in his work.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not, unfortunately, true that the efforts that we are making are not having helpful results and that the crisis is getting worse? Would not my

right hon. Friend think it appropriate for certain Western European countries, going outside N.A.T.O. and W.E.U., to come together to see whether they can add a constructive contribution?

Mr. Stewart: It is Her Majesty's Government policy that there should be increasing discussion between West European nations on all matters of foreign policy. But we should notice that Dr. Jarring is proposing a further round of discussions with the parties. I think that at present the best thing we can do is to encourage him and urge the parties to help him in his work.

Federal Republic of Germany (Relations)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-German relations, in the light of recent events in the field of defence and international monetary affairs in Europe.

Mr. Mulley: We are co-operating closely with the Federal Republic of Germany, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in many fields of common European concern including defence and monetary affairs.

Mr. Cronin: While there has undoubtedly been some exaggeration of the new power influence of West Germany in European affairs, is not the time ripe for some initiative by Her Majesty's Government to ensure closer co-operation with the Federal Republic on questions affecting British entry into the Common Market, N.A.T.O., international liquidity and other affairs?

Mr. Mulley: We have been and are in close touch with the Federal Republic on those subjects. I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "initiative". It is constant discussion of these affairs with West Germany that will bring the most fruitful co-operation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What progress is being made on proposals for Anglo-German-Dutch co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and on an advanced fighter aircraft?

Mr. Mulley: On the question of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as the House was informed earlier we are in consultation with the Dutch and Federal


German Governments about the development of the gas centrifuge method of enriching uranium. Preliminary meetings at Ministerial level have taken place and it is hoped to pursue this matter with the ultimate objective of joint collaboration.

Mr. Moyle: Was there any consultation between Her Majesty's Government and Dr. Kiesinger, the West German Chancellor, before the Chancellor's recent visit to Madrid, when he promised the Spanish Government that he would assist them to join the Common Market? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if that proposal were implemented, it would make the Common Market even less democratic than now?

Mr. Mulley: I know of no such consultations between Her Majesty's representatives and the West German Chancellor on this subject.

Export Promotion

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has given to British ambassadors and high commissioners abroad with regard to increasing their efforts to further British exports.

Mr. Mulley: British ambassadors and high commissioners are under standing instructions to regard promotion of ex ports as a first charge on their resources.

Mr. Cronin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable variation in the degree of helpfulness received by British exporters from British embassies and high commissions? Will he look into this and reiterate the instructions given by the former Foreign Secretary on the helpfulness that embassies and high commissions abroad should show to our exporters?

Mr. Mulley: If my hon. Friend can give me instances of complaints about lack of assistance I should be glad to look into them, but I cannot accept the general charge when, almost every day, I receive letters from chambers of commerce and individual firms thanking us for our assistance and saying how much better the services are now than they were some years ago.

Mr. James Davidson: Is it considered an essential qualification for promotion

in the Foreign and Commonwealth Service that a candidate should have spent at least one tour of duty in the commercial office of a leading embassy?

Mr. Mulley: I would not say that it is a formal requirement but there is a great desire among younger members of the Service in particular to make a contribution to helping exports in this way. Indeed, a number of recent entrants, asked why they had applied to join the Service, said that they felt that they could make an increased contribution in this way to the future prosperity of the country.

British Honduras

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the future constitutional position of British Honduras.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have at present nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 18th November.—[Vol. 773, c. 191.]

Mr. Henig: Is this not a disappointing situation? As this is one of our few remaining colonies, is it not time the Government laid down some kind of timetable within which British Honduras can gain its independence?

Mr. Roberts: It is our intention that British Honduras should proceed to independence and at the pace at which its Government consider it should adopt. No formal request has been received from the Government of British Honduras so far for a constitutional conference.

Mr. Braine: Since the repudiation of the mediator's report by the Government of British Honduras, have there been talks, official or unofficial, between that Government and Guatemala or between Her Majesty's Government and Guatemala? Can we have an assurance here and now that the wishes of the people of British Honduras will be paramount?

Mr. Roberts: I can give the assurance asked for. As the hon. Gentleman says, since the failure of mediation we have been considering other means of solving this dispute.

Pakistan and India (Secretary of State's Visit)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his visit to Pakistan and India.

Dr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to India.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am grateful to the Pakistan and Indian Governments for their invitations, which enabled me to visit their countries so soon after becoming responsible for British relations with Commonwealth countries.
I especially welcomed the opportunity to discuss major international issues with members of the Pakistan and Indian Governments. The warm welcome I received in both countries was reinforced by the frankness and candour of our discussions.

Mr. Ridsdale: Whilst welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has done to improve relations with the sub-continent, may I ask him why, on landing in Bombay, he took the opportunity to run down my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? Is this true?

Mr. Stewart: I had to curtail my visit and was unable to visit Bombay. I was on several occasions asked my opinion of the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I gave them.

Dr. Gray: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on persuading Mrs. Gandhi to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. Was he able to improve British-Indian relations during his truncated stay? Was he able to make any further arrangements for East African holders of British passports who wished to do so to settle in India when they are of Indian origin?

Mr. Stewart: The Prime Minister of India expresses a hope that she will be able to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. I believe that my visit was useful in improving relations between Britain and India. The question of East African holders of British pass-

ports who are of Indian origin was raised in our discussions. We did not conclude any formal agreement about it but the Indian Government have been helpful and I think they will continue to be so.

Middle East (Development Organisation)

Mr. Peel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose through the Committee of Ministers to the Council of Europe that it should explore the possibility of creating a Middle Eastern Development Organisation.

Mr. Mulley: We do not regard this as an urgent task for the Council of Europe.

Mr. Peel: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that the proposal received widespread support both in the Assembly of Western European Union and in the North Atlantic Assembly? Does not he agree that this area would benefit greatly from a scheme based perhaps on the lines of the Colombo Plan and that, if free Europe could get such a scheme launched, it would be extremely helpful from the point of view of the free world in assisting this difficult and sensitive area?

Mr. Mulley: I do not deny the desirability of a development programme for the Middle East. We have a number of bilateral programmes ourselves and would welcome further programmes by other European countries. We feel that projects of this kind might better be in the hands of the O.E.C.D. rather than of the Council of Europe but that is just our preliminary view.

Oral Answers to Questions — Iceland (European Free Trade Association)

Mr. Pounder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he supports Iceland's recent application to join the European Free Trade Association.

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to support an application for Iceland to join the European Free Trade Association.

Mr. Mulley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Pounder: Assuming that Iceland's application is successful, can the Minister forecast the likely effect of Icelandic membership of E.F.T.A. on the United Kingdom fish market which is currently experiencing glut conditions?

Mr. Mulley: As was made clear at the last ministerial meeting of the E.F.TA. Council, before Iceland can be admitted into full membership, a number of important considerations have to be examined, the most important of which is fish.

Oral Answers to Questions — Nordic Customs Union

Mr. Pounder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study he has made of the implications the creation of a Nordic Customs Union will have for the European Free Trade Association and for Great Britain's relations with the likely members.

Mr. Mulley: The creation of a Customs Union is one of several possible economic measures under examination by the Nordic Council. The implications will depend on what is finally agreed, but the Nordic Council have affirmed their intention that any proposals put forward shall be in line with their European Free Trade Area obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Moonman: On a point of order. In view of the large number of Questions on the Order Paper today, and the serious consequences for hundreds of thousands of asthmatic and bronchial patients arising from the shortage of influenza vaccine, have you been approached, Mr. Speaker, by my right hon. Friend about making a statement, as this would be the last opportunity before Christmas?

Mr. Speaker: I have every sympathy with any hon. Member who is anxious about a Question which has not been reached on the Order Paper. Every day many important Questions are not reached. Having said that, I have had no request from the Minister to answer the Questions to which the hon. Member refers.

Later—

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not have too many points of order. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker will get impatient.

Mr. Allaun: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman), you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that there are 88 Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. When the amalgamation of those Ministries was proposed, several months ago, several hon. Members, including myself, pointed out that precisely this situation would arise. Would you not think that this gives cause for reconsideration of providing two days for these two subjects?

Mr. Speaker: I say very seriously that one of the problems of this Parliament is that it is the keenest Parliament in history, with more questions on the Order Paper every day to every Minister. If we provide separate days for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Commonwealth Relations, both being the same Minister, someone else would have to suffer. It is a problem which the hon. Member must take up with the Ministers concerned. It is beyond the wit of Mr. Speaker, and probably of the Ministers, to solve.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, direct attention to a mistake in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday 12th December.
I was discussing expenditure on the investiture of the Prince of Wales. I am reported as saying:
There is £137 for temporary buildings to be put up and pulled down shortly after the ceremony is over … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 732.]
I wish to correct this mistake. I have every confidence in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I blame my own Scottish-Welsh accent. The sum of £137 should be £137,000.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will share the hon. Member's anxiety that his views on the investiture should be correctly and accurately recorded. The correction will be made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on business.
Following the exchanges on Friday, and bearing in mind the pressure of business, I have been considering the opportunities for a debate on the Pay of Building Workers.
I recognise the wish that, subject to the negotiations, the debate should take place as soon as possible and I propose that, if still desired, there should be a discussion of, say, three or four hours during Wednesday's sitting.

Mr. R. Carr: We welcome the readiness of the Leader of the House to seek to provide an opportunity for debate on this important matter. But may I probe the right hon. Gentleman a little further on what he means by the phrase "if still desired"? It seems to us that this will obviously depend to a large extent on the outcome of tomorrow's discussions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these discussions, as we hope, are success-full in averting the immediate crisis, we might feel that it is not necessary to have a debate before Christmas?

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks. The interpretation of "desirable" conforms with what he has said.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Heffer.

Mr. Heffer: rose —

Sir G. Nabarro: Speak for the workers.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman can not. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the timing of this debate with a view to bringing it forward so that the building operatives, employers and all those concerned can hear the views of hon. Members prior to the meeting taking place? I realise that the meeting is to morrow, but I believe that my right hon. Friend should bring it forward at the

earliest possible moment so that the view of the House can be thoroughly aired.

Mr. Peart: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views on the matter, but I think that what I have said in reply to the spokesman for the Opposition is reasonable in the circumstances. Discussions are going on.

Mr. John Page: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, even if a final decision has not been made by the unions about the attitude that they will adopt towards the direction from the Government, the debate can still take place on Wednesday and will not be indefinitely postponed?

Mr. Peart: I thought that my reply to the spokesman for the Opposition was reasonable. After all, discussions are going on.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House tell us more clearly what he means by a debate during the course of Wednesday's proceedings? Will he specify what it means? Is that not a rather an original form of statement to the House on how debates are to take place? Should we not be told what my right hon. Friend proposes?

Mr. Peart: There is no attempt to conceal anything from my hon. Friend. When he says that it is an original form of statement, I am grateful that he assumes that I am original in my approach to the matter. I am anxious to satisfy the wish of the House, and I thought that what I said was reasonable.

Mr. Sharples: Will the Leader of the House say whether it is still proposed to proceed with the business already put down for Wednesday, the Representation of the People Bill, or whether it is proposed that this should be abandoned for Wednesday?

Mr. Peart: I did not say that. I think that we shall see how things go.

Mr. Turton: Surely it is most unusual for the Leader of the House to avoid giving the House the order of business. Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely when this Order will be taken? Will it be taken at the beginning of Wednesday's business?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, appreciates that this is not an Order.

Mr. Orme: Following up that point, may I ask my right hon. Friend in what terms the matter is to be presented? Will it be in the form of a Motion? How will it be debated? I think that we should be absolutely clear.

Mr. Peart: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to embarrass me, or, indeed, anyone else. I merely said that we should await developments before we decide.

Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to unfortunate precedents in situations of this kind, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he can give my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself an assurance that no impediment will be placed in the way of the official Opposition voting in a matter of this kind, supported by Members opposite who have made such loud noises on behalf of building operatives?

Mr. Peart: I assure the hon. Member that I wish to place no impediment in his or in my hon. Friends' way. I thought that the arrangement which I made would suit the House.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the Leader of the House say whether the vote will be taken between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Thursday? Has he ascertained from the Deputy Leader of the House whether there will be a whip on that vote?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say. The matter of whipping is not one for me. I thought that after what I did on Friday, this was right and proper, and I am glad that what I did was appreciated by my colleagues.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When shall we have an opportunity of debating the Motion for the dates of the Christmas Adjournment?

Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Member asks that. I thought that I should be asked about it last Thursday. The debate will be on Tuesday.

Mr. Pannell: Is the Leader of the House aware that it would be very unfortunate if the Representation of the People

Bill had to be considered through the night or in the early hours of Thursday morning? Bearing in mind his statement this afternoon, if we take the question of the building trade operatives on Wednesday afternoon, does he propose that we should take the rest of the Representation of the People Bill on Thursday morning? Is he aware that many of us place a great deal of importance on that Bill and do not think that it ought to be taken in the wee small hours of any night or morning?

Mr. Peart: I think that my right hon. Friend misunderstood me. He will appreciate that there is great pressure on business this week I am doing my best to satisfy the views of all hon. Members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: How much time does the Leader of the House propose to devote tomorrow to debate the Motion for the Adjournment? A number of us want to speak on that Motion. We think that this is no time for the House of Commons to go into Recess.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has made his point. When I announced the date for the Recess, I was not aware that he opposed it. If he feels that he wishes to make a speech, he has every right to do so.

Mr. Onslow: Why is the Leader of the House beating about the bush about Thursday morning? If we are to sit on Thursday morning, would it not be a good thing to say so, so that a large number of people who propose to visit the House do not put themselves out to no purpose?

Mr. Peart: Discussions are going on and, therefore, I cannot be precise. A morning sitting could take place under our Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Harwood Harrison.

Mr. Michael Foot: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not recognise the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) to have more right than any other Member of Parliament. He has put his business question.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. I was certainly not seeking to claim that I have any rights before any other hon. Member, Sir, but I think that it is the right of an hon. Member to rise to put


a supplementary question on a matter. There is no Ruling of the House which provides otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: It is the custom of this Speaker to call one hon. Member to put one business question on one business statement. I am not prepared to vary that.

Sir Harwood Harrison: You called my name, Mr. Speaker. If you had not done so, I should not have risen, because the Leader of the House has since answered the question put by hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).

DEFENCE (ARMY)

Mr. Speaker: The House will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the first two Motions—Defence (Army) and Defence (Royal Air Force)—are to be taken formally and that the House wishes to move straight to Motion No. 3, Run-down of Forces and Reserves. If that is the will of the House, I will proceed to put the first Motion. The Question is—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that it was by the will of the House that the first two Motions should be taken formally. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am ascertaining the will of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1968. a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr Healey.]

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I strongly object to the taking of the first Order, Defence (Army), on the nod. There are precedents for a debate. It was repeatedly decided by your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, in debates in which the former Member for Dudley (Lord Wigg), myself and others took part, that this draft order could be debated and that we could raise on it matters of recruiting and of discipline.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The last thing this Speaker wishes to do is to deprive an hon. Member of his right to speak on a Motion before the House. The hon. Member is perfectly in order.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know whether my opinion is shared by hon. Members on both sides, but I believe that before the House passes this important Order we should have an opportunity of discussing it in the wider aspect than in the narrow aspect provided in the censure Motion of the Opposition. That would narrow the debate, in which many of us wish to raise wider and more important questions. In the past, it has been ruled that, while we are not entitled to discuss the wider aspects of defence and foreign affairs on this Motion, we


are entitled to discuss military discipline and recruiting. I want, first, to raise a question of military discipline and to ask the Minister for some information.
A statement by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was reported in the Press last Friday about a projected visit by him to the British Army of the Rhine. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman had a grievance in that he had been invited to visit the British Army of the Rhine, but that this invitation had been cancelled and that this was a challenge to free speech in the Army. I hold no brief for the right hon. Member. I am sorry that owing to the late arrival of my plane I was unable to give him personal notice that I intended to raise the matter, but it raises a question of discipline of the Army. I want to know, in the first place, why the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was invited to address the Army of the Rhine. I should have said that that in itself was a challenge to military discipline. Suppose there happened to be coloured soldiers in the Army of the Rhine—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on the visit of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to the Army and how it cuts across the Army Act which we are putting into force by this Motion. I cannot do so if hon. Members continue to talk.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I believe in discipline.
This is a sufficiently important question for me to ask for a statement by a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence. What are the circumstances in which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was invited to address the Army of the Rhine and why was the invitation cancelled? In view of the controversial part which he has played in affairs, it seems to me regrettable that he, above all people, should have been invited to address our officers and our soldiers. I understand that he and Mrs. Powell were invited to Germany, the explanation given being that he was to speak on important defence questions.
I have no quarrel with the statement that the right hon. Member is interested in defence, because early in the year he

was Shadow Defence Minister. But he has ceased to hold that post. I cannot understand why one private Member—he had become a private Member be cause he had gone to the back benches—should have preference over another. I do not see why the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West should have any more preference than the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) or even the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, myself. If there is to be free speech in the Army of the Rhine, and if Members are to be invited to discuss these matters, then other hon. Members with different points of view are entitled to put them.

Mr. James Ramsden: On a point of order. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the House has often been in difficulties in bringing within the rules of order those subjects which hon. Members wish to discuss in connection with the Army. It was for that reason that we on this side of the House tabled a wider Motion. Would you, Mr. Speaker, for our guidance, say how what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is saying falls within the rules of order?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) had strayed for one second beyond the bounds of order, Mr. Speaker would have called him to order.

Mr. Hughes: I do not intend to stray for a second, or for a split second, beyond the bounds of order, Sir.
I wish to know what would be the effect on the discipline of the troops of a speech made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. There are coloured soldiers in the Army of the Rhine. If a coloured soldier were invited to ask questions of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, he might ask some very pertinent questions, such as," Why have coloured people in the Army? Are they here to defend you when you want to repatriate us to Jamaica? ".
I view with alarm the prospect of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wandering from garrison to garrison in different parts of the world making speeches on these issues. Sup pose that he goes to address the Gurkhas? He might very well cause a mutiny among


the Gurkhas. They might want to repatriate him.
We should be told by the Minister how Members are selected for these purposes and whether there is to be a free-for-all.
I turn to the matters raised in the draft Order. In another place, a full statement was made by the Government spokesman on the question of enlistment and recruiting. It is not right for Members of the House of Commons, when they wish to discuss Orders and a Government statement, to have to read a statement made in the Upper House by the Government spokesman for the Air Force. I hope—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have protected the hon. Member against the House. We are on the first Order, not the second Order. He must leave the Air Force out at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has insisted on his right to speak on the first Order, which is about the Army.

Mr. Hughes: I have had to get my information from the statement made by the Government spokesman for the Army in the House of Lords, where the question of recruiting has been discussed in detail.
We understand from the military authorities that the recruiting outlook for the Army is very gloomy, that the numbers of recruits needed are not coming forward and that the situation is a little worse than it was last year. I wish to know whether that is so.
We have had a very important amateur recruiting campaign in Scotland. There has been an attempt to save the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like the hon. Gentleman to help me. Once this debate is out of the way, we are to discuss Motion No. 3, which covers some of the points which the hon. Gentleman is raising now. We do not want two debates on the same subject.

Mr. Hughes: I agree. I waive my right to speak on the third Motion. I will not try to make a speech in any sub sequent debate. I am sure that that will relieve hon. Members and the pressure on the House.
I cannot see any sign of a recruiting boom in Scotland. A petition has been signed—and I understand that it is to be presented to the House—by ex-officers and others who want to save the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. It was signed by 1 million people. What has been its effect upon recruiting in Scotland? Has it helped recruiting in Scotland? I understand that a tremendous effort was involved in obtaining these 1 million signatures. Women and children signed the petition. If 1 million people have signed a petition calling upon the Government to save the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, why are not the recruiting figures higher?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman, who I know is anxious to help the House. Motion No. 3 deals with the run-down of Her Majesty's Forces. What we are deciding at the moment is whether we shall have an Army, whether we should renew the Army Act. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman kept himself to that and saved himself for the debate on that Motion.

Mr. Hughes: As I have said, I have no intention of encroaching upon the time of the House later. But these matters were discussed in another place and I think that I am entitled to mention the problem of recruiting as it was discussed in another place.
I should like to know whether the Minister proposes to make an effort to discover whether any of the people who signed the petition can help to bring soldiers into the Scottish regiments. If 1 million people signed the petition, surely some recruits will result from it. Or were these merely people who thought that by signing the petition outside castles in Scotland they were helping recruiting? As one who has watched this campaign with a great deal of interest, I should like to know the effect of the petition.
I understand that in my constituency signatures were obtained in a very curious way. I am told that they were obtained in public houses, on Saturday night.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the the signatures were obtained in a dubious or an honest way, the hon. Gentleman must come to the Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to deal with the argument as it was debated in another place.
I do not think that the Army authorities have been helped by this monster petition. I believe that collecting the signatures of tourists to Scotland outside the castles of Scotland has had not effect on recruiting.
I leave the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and I come to the broad question of recruiting. Undoubtedly, recruiting is declining. The question whether we have an Army surely depends on whether we get recruits. If the recruits are not coming forward, we will not have an Army to discipline. There fore, we should be discussing the whole question of the cause of the fall in recruiting.

Mr. David Crouch: I wonder whether it would help the hon. Member if he were now to resume his seat and hear the debate, and then take part in the debate after he has heard the observations from both Front Benches, because he is touching on a debate which is to follow on the third Order.

Mr. Hughes: Debate No. 3 is in the queue. I study my military and Parliamentary strategy, and I have come in at the front of the queue. If the hon. Member is still in queue No. 3 I cannot help it. He should study his strategy.
I turn to the facts about recruits. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but according to the statement we have 9,041 fewer than we need. In the total intake of 11,000, the fall-off is 15,400. We are told that the rising proportion of young men who are marrying early must have an adverse effect on the number of recruits. I want to know why, in a Government document, the Minister objects to citizens marrying early.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): We do not object.

Mr. Hughes: If the Government do not object to it, the fact is that the more they marry early the fewer recruits will be obtained for the Army.
Apparently, the position is so bad that the Government are trying to speed up the recruiting of boys. I do not believe

that the recruiting of boys is desirable. In his statement, however, the Minister says that the recruiting of more boys is the bright spot in the whole picture. I want to know whether that is so. The whole question of how many recruits we need for the Army depends upon what kind of an Army we need.

Mr. Speaker.: Order. Let me help the hon. Member. In this debate we are deciding whether we have an Army. The hon. Member must confine himself to whether the Army Act should be renewed.

Mr. Hughes: I am arguing Mr. Speaker, that if the recruiting figures decline at this rate, in 1975 or 1976 we will not have an Army. I cannot under stand why this is not relevant. It depends what size the Army is to be. The Government have told us in the Army Estimates that we need 224,000 men.
I turn, however, to probably one of the great authorities on military affairs, and that is Lord Montgomery. I listened, as I always listen, respectfully to Lord Montgomery, who is a member of another place. He says that the size of Army that he would recommend is a short, efficient Army of 180,000.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that while we understand how anxious you must be to protect the rights of any minority in the House, the House itself is in danger of forfeiting its own much-valued rights of calling to account the Government Front Bench on measures which a majority of Members of the House consider to be of principal importance to them?
May I sincerely ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much longer it would be before you are likely to accept a Motion, That the hon. Member to be not further heard?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must never mix points of order with points of politics. His opinion of the Government has nothing to do with a point of order. The size of the Army has nothing to do with the subject on which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should be speaking. The hon. Member must con fine himself to the Motion on the Order Paper, which is whether the Army Act,


1955, should be continued for the year. He would assist the House if he did so.

Mr. Hughes: I am as keen on protecting the rights of this honourable House as anybody else, and, of course, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I do not bow to the amateur strategists on the benches opposite, who do not study their Parliamentary strategy.

Mr. John Mendelson: They do not know anything about it.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not take long, but I say this. The numbers in the Army may decrease to nothing, and in that case we will not need these Orders. We already have a sufficiently big Army, according to the opinion of one of the highest military authorities in the country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we have, that is a matter which will arise on the third Motion and not on this one. Can I help the hon. Member, who, I know, knows what I am saying? On this Order, we are deciding whether we renew the Army Act, 1955.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not want the Army Act renewed until we get a satisfactory answer to these questions—and I presume that that is in order.
I have been in these tortuous Parliamentary ways before. Sometimes we have to advance, and sometimes we have to retreat. I am quite prepared to retreat when the commanding officer gives the word. I am about to retreat, Mr. Speaker, to a better strategic place in the rear.
I say, therefore, that we need a fuller statement from the Minister about how many recruits are needed and why we are not getting the recruits. In the other place, it was said that we were spending £3 million last year on publicity, trying to get into the Army the soldiers who never came. I am obliged to the House for listening so patiently. I have put my point of view and I hope that we will get an answer from the Minister.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: It certainly is not my intention to trespass on the subject matter of the third Motion, but there is one point to which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys

Hughes) alluded, in passing, which is of fundamental importance and which we should seek to raise with the Minister of Defence for Administration, who is on the Front Bench. If I may have his attention for a moment, I am sure that he will know to what I am referring—that is, the issue of teenage Service men, which has been going on to my know ledge for well over 18 months.
I am sure that the Minister will recall the discussion which I had with him in April, 1967, together with a deputation of members of the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group, on this extremely important and anxious subject of teenage Service, men who, in many instances, are being asked to sign on for as long as 12 years at an age when they are not fully equipped to make such a fundamental decision.
When we saw the Minister, he said that he would consider our representations carefully, particularly in the light of the Report of the Latey Committee, which he had not then received. If I may remind him of the points we raised with him, they were, first, the possibility of extending the statutory rights of discharge for teenage Service men from three months to a longer period compatible with the manpower requirements of the Services.
Secondly, we wanted to discuss the causes of dissatisfaction among teenagers, bearing in mind that there appeared to be less difficulty with apprentices who received a technical training, which could be of use to them later in civilian life. The third question was the right to obtain discharge at the age of majority; and the fourth, the moral and social implications of unilateral agreements—i.e., attestation made under the age of 18, and particularly by young boys of the age of 15 or 16.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member would not like to get out of order. We are deciding whether we have an Army or not. Will he link his remarks to that question?

Mr. Lubbock: As I understand, the position of these boy recruits is governed by the Army Act, and particularly by those provisions of it which relate to their discharge after the period of six months of service, or, as we suggest, at the age of majority.
The Minister of Defence for Administration took his time in considering these representations which were made by the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group. Having first of all given us to under stand that he would be making a statement in the House before the Summer Recess, he did not do so until fairly late in the autumn, when he eventually made a statement which went only part of the way to meet the case we put to him. He agreed with us that there should be an extension of the period within which a young boy can decide he is not suited for military service, but he would not accept the most fundamental of the reasons we put to him, that a young man should have the right to opt out of the Service on reaching the age of his majority.
Now that we have the Latey Committee's Report and have had full opportunity of giving it consideration, and are making the age of 18 the age for making legal decisions in other aspects of our national life—

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Member, we are not discussing the age of entry into the Army. We are discussing whether the Army Act, 1955, shall be renewed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for leaping to the defence of his hon. Friend, Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Mr. Hughes: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that you are giving an important ruling which I should like to have clarified. The hon. Member, like myself, has been reading the statement on the defence Orders in the other place. In the other place it was ruled that we could discuss the question of boy recruiting. Is it your ruling—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is the most experienced Parliamentarian in the House. He knows that the rules of this House are quite distinct from those of the other and that what is in order in the other place is not necessarily in order in this House.

Mr. Lubbock: I would not wish to contravene your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in any way. If it is not proper for me now to discuss whether teenage Servicemen should have the right to opt out at the age of 18, in addition to that they already possess under the Army Act to leave the serve after the first six months, then I would not attempt to do so.
However, there is one other point connected with this whole problem of teen age Servicemen, and I think it will be in order, and that is, how it affects discipline in the Service which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire says we have traditionally been entitled to discuss on the Army Act.
There are two ways in which large-scale recruitment of boys may have deleterious effects on the discipline of the Service. First of all, we have the young men who, after being in the Service for a short while, decide they are not suited for that kind of existence and go absent without leave, or worse still, desert for long periods. This must have a harmful effect on the morale of the other Servicemen, particularly of those in the same units. I cannot see how any one can deny that proposition. There fore, if the Minister is leaning more heavily on boy recruits to make up the numbers in the Service, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire alleges, this is a very serious matter which must be examined by the House before we allow the Army Act to continue.
Secondly, to the extent that these boys do not desert, but continue to serve in the units to which they are posted, that, too, must have a harmful effect on discipline and the general morale of the Service.
These matters are unconnected with the matters we are to debate on the third of the three Motions. Therefore, while I agree that that third Motion is of great importance, and while I accept what the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said about the rights of most other hon. Members who wish to discuss it, I hope that we shall have thorough and complete answers from the Minister to these questions of teenage Service, and that we shall have them before we proceed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that he has spoken in one of today's major debates on behalf of his party.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I do not intend to detain the House more than a couple of minutes, but since this matter has been raised, even if in what is now the somewhat unorthodox fashion, on the first Motion, which is technically subject to debate, like any other Motion which appears on the Order Paper, I wish to add my voice in support of what has been said, although I do so from another point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as we are very well aware, has raised this matter from a pacifist and technical point of view. He is not willing to approve the Motion till he receives satisfactory answers. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has raised it from the Liberal benches from the point of view of personal liberty.
I have considerable sympathy with both hon. Members. I am not a pacifist. Let me make that clear. I believe that the country needs armed forces, unfortunately. Till the world becomes more civilised we cannot do without them. So I am not raising this matter from any sort of pacifist angle. However, if, by the exigencies of the time and the need for defence, we are driven to recruiting boys to the Army, to enlist youngsters of this age when they are not in a position to exercise proper judgment as to what is the contract they are undertaking, then I shall reserve my right to speak here and say that this is bad policy in the national interest.
I say so for this simple reason, that it has always been accepted under the common law of England—I do not wish to encourage any lawyers in the House, who will obviously agree with me on this—that young men under the age of 21, as it is now before we pass new legislation, no minor, can make any contract which is not for his own benefit, and if he does so he can set it aside when he reaches the age of majority. I am not speaking theoretically about this; I am speaking from practical experience in all kinds of civil contracts for in demnities and damages.
In addition to the more indirect questions which have been put to my right hon. Friends, I want to know in what sense the youngsters of 16 who, rightly or wrongly, enlist for Army service are

distinct from ordinary citizens who have the right, of which I have just spoken, to change their minds when they come of age.
In the propaganda and publicity which is being used by the military authorities for getting recruits it seems to me that nobody knows that a youngster of 16 who, for his own good reasons, joins the forces is thereby surrendering his civil rights which he would ordinarily in other respects possess as a citizen.
This is a very important distinction. I would not like it to go out from this House that because of a lack of vigilance on the part of hon. Members, or because of the sophistries sometimes used in these debates by those who have a vested interest in hiding the truth, we can have a situation in which children are taken from school into the Army without having any opportunity to reconsider their position when they reach the age of discretion. This is something which I deplore. It has just happened. It is a form of administration whereby military law is applied to people to whom it ought not to apply.
For my right hon. Friends, and per haps for hon. Members opposite who always, on these occasions, pose as military experts on all kinds of matters on which they do not know the answers, it may be very inconvenient to have this little debate now before the main one, and I therefore do want to prolong it further.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: An important constitutional principle is involved in this matter. We are being asked to do something more than merely approve an Order. We are being asked to estabish and carry on the Army for another year. That being so, it is the right of every back bencher—a right which we would not want to see eroded—to make his views known on this issue; and if an arrangement has been concluded between the two Front Benches to enable the Opposition to debate a silly Motion of censure when we could be discussing many more important subjects, then I make no apology for adding my voice to this debate.
After all, I was not a party to what ever arrangement may have been concluded, I was not consulted about whether


such an arrangement should be made. It will not do hon. Gentlemen opposite any harm, therefore, to listen awhile to back benchers on this side of the House expressing their views on this important matter. They may find what we have to say extremely interesting.
Until 1879, the continuance of the Army was by the Mutiny Act. Then, in 1881, we had the Army Act, and that had to be renewed annually. It was also subject to amendment each year. The situation gradually became so impossible that by 1952 a Select Committee was established to investigate the whole matter. For example, there were 920 amendments to the Army Act, 1881, on one occasion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There have been many amendments when the Army Acts have come up for renewal at various times in history. I hope that we shall be spared most of them and that the hon. Member will come to the Instrument under discussion.

Mr. Lipton: Having mentioned that there were 920 amendments to that Act on one occasion, I had intended to abandon the matter there.
The situation now is that the Army Act is renewable only once every five years and, therefore, it is not possible to amend it within that period. That makes this debate more important than ever, and the right of hon. Members to speak on the subject. This right must not be allowed to fall into desuetude.
I am not in the least interested in the verbal slanging match which will take place across the Floor of the House on the Motion of censure. That sort of discussion is regarded by the electorate as irrelevant to the needs of the country, a misuse of Parliamentary time and a misuse of the power which the Opposition owe to Parliament and the country. I wish to inject some rationality into the debate.
It may be to the advantage of the House if I make the position clear. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that when we were discussing the Army Act (Continuation) Order in 1957 you gave an important Ruling on procedure. You said:
It is important that we should try to get the position straight. This is the first time

that this procedure has been resorted to for the Army Act and I am anxious not to lay down any rule which is wrong. The way I look at it is that, broadly speaking, the subjects which are covered by the Act are those which, in general, are discharged by the departments in the War Office of the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General—what the soldiers used to call 'A' and 'Q' matters. Therefore, in my judgment, matters applying to the General Staff, operational matters, the strategy of the Army and even foreign affairs in connection with the Army, are completely out of order on this debate. There are, of course, borderline questions and I should hesitate in advance to lay down a rule about them.
In so far as the Act makes provision for recruitment and for the terms of engagement of the Regular Army, and in so far as it can be shown that these conditions militate against recruiting or harm recruiting or are successful in attracting recruits, I think that that would be in order.
I shall, therefore, confine myself strictly to the Ruling which was given in that debate. In other words, we are entitled to discuss "A" and "Q" matters, recruitment, terms of engagement and cognate subjects. I do not wish to embark on another sphere of this subject, but I might add that a Ruling was given by Mr. Deputy Speaker in that debate of 1957, in which he said:
… in my view, it is in order to discuss amalgamation, and I am going to allow it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December 1957, Vol. 579, c. 230–56.]
In accordance with that Ruling, it would be technically possible in this debate to discuss the amalgamation of regiments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has discussed what is and is not in order, I trust that he will come to the speech which he wishes to make.

Mr. Lipton: I wanted to protect my self as far as possible against being ruled out of order in the remarks which I in tend to make, Mr. Speaker. In other words, I wanted to erect my defences so as to minimise the risk of being shot down in flames later.
As we are entitled to discuss recruiting, it is worth pointing out that this is currently the most difficult problem facing the Service Departments. How a censure debate will help a rational discussion of this problem, I fail to understand. I suggest that it would be advantageous to have a Select Committee of the House


dealing with the problem, which is a purely factual one relating to the best methods of getting men to serve in such forces as this House decides are necessary for the nation's safety.
The recruiting figures are interesting, because whereas, in 1966, the Army got 19,500 men from civil life, in 1967 that figure had dropped to 15,440, while, according to official figures, the trend has continued, with the result that the in take for 1968 will probably be about 11,000. On 1st April of next year we will probably have 9,500 fewer men than we need in the Services.
This is a serious situation and it should be possible for some kind of all party organisation to discuss the problems involved. The Services can still offer many attractions with a range of career opportunities which did not exist some years ago, but what we are now doing is deciding what the rô le of the Army is to be in the 1970s. Those who have studied the numerous White Papers on the subject will be aware that it takes five and sometimes 10 years for a policy to achieve fruition. There are all kinds of long-term factors which do not run in our favour. There is no political capital to be made out of them and there are no votes in them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, in years gone by the principal source of recruits was from among young men aged 15 to 19. The numbers of this section of the population are falling. There are now more than 200,000 fewer men aged between 15 and 19 in this group than there were in 1966. Due to circumstances entirely outside any political control, factors which have nothing to do with whether the Labour Party or Tory Party is in power, there are 202,000 fewer men in the age group which was the principal source from which we were able to derive recruits. This tendency, this diminution in that section of the population, will continue until 1973.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this in too much detail. We are discussing whether we renew the Army Act. Some of the issues which the hon. Gentleman is raising will arise on the Motion ahead of us. I hope that we can get to it.

Mr. Lipton: I tried to make it as clear as I could that I was not very interested in that Motion which has been put down by the Opposition. I do not conceive it to be my duty to facilitate the Opposition in their desire to move their Motion of censure. No doubt their time will come, but they will just have to wait until the House has disposed of the Order now under discussion. However, I did not intend to pursue this subject any further.
I want now to refer to some other matters of a non-political nature which affect recruiting. The school-leaving age has risen. Boys now leave school with higher qualifications and wider ambitions and that fact, too, constitutes an obstacle in the way of recruiting the kind of people needed. Under the Industrial Training Act, boys still stay longer in full-time education with all the kinds of facilities now available to youngsters which constitute an inducement to stay in civilian life rather than join the Army.
Attractive conditions of service are now offered by the Services and it should be possible by a more careful process of selection at selection centres to get better value from recruits. Until now, we have waited until a recruit has been allocated to a regiment or corps before deciding for what he was fitted. I am glad to note that the Government are to see that that process takes place at the selection centre, which will ensure that we get more value out of recruits at an earlier stage.
It is encouraging to note that the prolongation rate is fairly good. It reached more than 50 per cent. in 1967 for the six-year men compared with 42 per cent. in the previous year. These are the men whose services we want to prolong and who will make the task of maintaining the Army much more worth while.
Officer recruitment is about holding its own. Wonderful opportunites are now available to young men who want to take commissions and, although there are shortages in the Royal Army Medical Corps and one or two other professional corps, generally speaking the situation with officers recruits is not too bad. It is encouraging to note the co-operation of the Confederation of British Industry in respect of the short-service commissions enabling young men on the completion of a short-service commission to


find jobs in civilian life more easily than would otherwise have been the case.
One disquieting feature of conditions in the Army at present is the many soldiers absenting themselves without leave. The figures show that these A.W.O.L.s have constituted an increasing proportion of the total number of courts martial convictions since 1964. My feeling about this category of case is that much could be avoided if commanding officers of units and N.C.O.s knew a little more about man management. Much depends on the common sense and wisdom of individual commanding officers and senior N.C.O.s. Good leadership leads to self-discipline and in the end reduces the number of soldiers absenting themselves without leave.
Having, to the best of my ability, established the right of hon. Members on an Order of this kind to have their say, irrespective of arrangements between the two Front Benches about Motions of censure, and so on, I resume my seat and thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the patience which you have shown towards me.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: On a point of order. I am anxious, Mr. Speaker, not only to understand your Rulings, but to appreciate your comments. When my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) concluded his speech, you said—and I took note—that he had made a major speech on behalf of his party. I speak subject to correction and I would be the last to wish to misquote any words of yours. I am not certain what is the implication or significance of that remark. Whether this is a major debate is not a matter for me to interpret. It was certainly, I know, the wish of the two Front Benches that this would be a minor and purely formal debate, but we on this bench were not a party to any such discussions or arrangements.
I very much hope—indeed, I respect fully beg to assume—that the implication of your remark was not that any hon. Gentleman—or, indeed, any party to which any hon. or right hon. Gentleman belonged—should be in any way disadvantaged because he did not choose to treat a particular debate in as formal a sense as both Front Benches sought to obtain.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One of Mr. Speaker's jobs is to ration out the debates as between parties in the House of Commons. If two debates were to take place, as at present appears to be the case, Mr. Speaker might have to decide that the Liberal Party could not have a place in each of the two debates.

Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I respect your Ruling, but is not the implication that those hon. Members—who may not be Members of the Liberal Party, but back benchers of any party—who do not choose to accept or abide by any particular agreement made between the two Front benches might find themselves disadvantaged in their rights which they seek to exercise in this House?

Mr. Speaker: It is much simpler than that. If hon. Members exercised their right to speak in one debate it might be unlikely that they would be called in the second debate if other hon. Members wished to speak in it.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is extremely disturbing. With great respect to you, do I take it that your words implied a threat to the Liberal Party that its spokesman might not be called in a subsequent debate because one of its members chose to take part in this debate? If that is so, it is extremely regrettable that Mr. Speaker should choose to imply a threat to any minority party.
This debate was initiated by a member of the Labour Party, but one heard no threats to the Labour Party because he initiated this debate. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House does not under stand that you are really impliedly threatening not to call a Liberal Party speaker in a subsequent debate because of this happening.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. He knows that a threat is made before some thing happens. This was a remark after something had happened.

Mr. Hooson: Further to that point of order. I do not know why the comment had to be made unless it was a threat. This is not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot bandy points of law with the hon and learned Gentleman. He probably knows that this Speaker is the most jealous protector of minorities for very many years. When he makes a comment, he does not make it as a threat. I commented on the fact that we had already had one debate and that we might have an other, and that it might be impossible to include in each of those two debates members of a minority party. Mr. Bence—on the debate.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I have never concealed my view that a standing Army is desirable. I do not agree with my hon Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that we should dispense with our Armed Forces. In the world as it is, we must, with the rest of the nations, have the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. We in this island are faced with a very difficult choice. Modern warfare is a technical matter. It is now not so much a question of massed armies, but a highly technical exercise, and to have an efficient Army we must recruit a very large percentage of highly-qualified technical people.
A Government, whatever their ideology, have to find the point at which we can have adequate technical and scientific recruits for our industrial base and, at the same time, find recruits for our Armed Forces. It is not for me or for any other hon. Member without a great deal of information to decide where that point lies, but we all know from our newspapers that industry is crying out for the same kind of technicians and the same kind of expertise that the forces want. We have to defend our country, but I am told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we must get our balance of payments right.
As far as I can see, as a member of N.A.T.O. it is far more important that we should recruit and educate more and more scientific and technological men for our industrial forces. That is where we need the manpower—the managers, the technicians, the expertise. We must also have a nucleus of them in the Armed Forces. I do not think it likely that war will break out, but I am sure that we play in N.A.T.O. a bigger part

commensurate with our industrial standing than any other nation. Over the past 20 years, we have probably contributed more per head to the defence of the free world than any other nation. Now we are told that within the next few years we must pay off massive inter national debts.
An engineer in the Army does not pay off debts, but an engineer in industry, in telecommunications, and the like, does pay off debts. Our prime job is to pay off these debts, so that it is the function of the Government to reduce our Services personnel to as low a level as possible. The more men we get into industry, into the scientific and techno logical aspects of industry, the greater the reserve they will form if the need ever arose for an enlarged British Army. It is a tradition of Britain always to maintain only a very small standing army. Throughout the age of the pax Britannica we had a very small standing army—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the War Office's recruiting literature special stress is laid on its wish to attract experienced engineers, electricians and other skilled men into the Army?

Mr. Bence: That is perfectly true. There is a recruiting drive. A good deal of publicity is given to the fact that young men going into any one of the three Services will receive training that later will fit them for industry. I know of one young man who joined the Army to do his National Service, went to Alder-shot and was trained, and who says today that he owes a great deal of his present success as much to the training that he received in the Royal Engineers and the officers cadet school as to his grammar school.
There is no doubt that the training is first-class, but that has a double edge, because if we attract men into the forces to get a good training, and they enter on a short-term engagement or commission and then leave we are not so much recruiting them to the Armed Forces as continually passing them into industry. I certainly have no objection to the Army setting up apprentice training schools where these young men can be trained. Industry benefits from that training very much later on and the general body of


taxpayers pays for it. They come back into industry where their skill is needed. But that is not maintaining a big standing Army—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this line too much in detail. We are discussing whether or not we renew the Army Act. The hon. Gentleman must talk about that.

Mr. Bence: But of course, to maintain an Army on the basis of the Army Act, we need recruitment, and this difficult problem of recruiting and keeping men was beyond Ministers of Defence in the previous Administration. My right hon. Friend has done much better than all his predecessors because he has held the job much longer than any of them, which is a great compliment to his capacity and ability. He is tackling this problem better than it has ever been tackled before.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the virtues or vices of the Minister of Defence, but whether we renew the Army Act. The hon. Gentleman must speak to that.

Mr. Bence: I would have liked to say much more about the success of the present Administration in recruitment and giving up responsibilities all over the world to balance industrial and military requirements, but I will end with a compliment to my right hon. Friend on the way that he has carried out his job.

4.51 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds) rose —

Mr. Speaker: The question is—

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Are we not to have a reply from the Minister to this debate?

Mr. Speaker: If we were to have had a reply, the Minister would have risen.

Mr. Reynolds: Further to that point of order. I did rise, Mr. Speaker, but your eyes were already on the Order Paper. You were reading the Motion.
We have had a short debate on this matter, similar to other debates during the period 1960–64, when the then Oppo-

sition put down Motions and hon. Members sitting on that bench, although with rather different views, carried on a debate similar to the one that we have had today. There is nothing unusual in this. In fact, I anticipated that it would happen—

Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order. I am very anxious, be cause it was suggested earlier that hon. Members speaking in this debate might extinguish their right to speak on in a later debate. We will want to hear answers from the right hon. Gentleman about many other important matters later and I hope that he will not be deprived of this right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Goarlay): That is not a relevant point of order.

Mr. Reynolds: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raised points about Army recruiting, which, he said, was not particularly good at the moment. I will say something about that in our third debate today, but my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) gave the actual figures and the reasons why we think recruiting is not going too well. I admit that. There was one thing which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire said, that we were recruiting more boys, which is not quite correct. From January to September, 1967, we recruited 5,266 boys into the Army. This year, over the same period, we recruited 4,978, rather fewer, but in the third quarter of this year, we recruited rather more than in the third quarter of 1967. So it looks as though recruiting of boys is picking up rather earlier than the recruiting of men.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the campaign, with 1 million signatures, to save the Argylls and wondered where all the signatures had come from. I have just returned from a visit to Katmandu, where I saw a motor car bearing a sticker on the back which said," Save the Argylls". I do not know how many of the signatures might have come from the occupants of that car.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend remember the famous poem about the green-eyed idol of Katmandu? Did that sign the petition?

Mr. Reynolds: I would not have thought that that was physically possible, but, if it were, I have no doubt that it would have been tried.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not give us in Scotland cause to put stickers on our cars saying," Save the Gurkhas ".

Mr. Reynolds: We need 16,500 adult males recruited into the Army this year and it looks as though we will get only about 11,000, so things are nothing like as good as we would like.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) gave his version of what occurred in the last 18 months over the question of boy recruiting from the visit which he and others made to me prior to my statement to the House. I do not dispute what he said. I can only repeat what I said at the time of that visit, that, morally, I would not defend this system, but that in terms of meeting our defence needs, I can see no alternative to it.
I also said that we were considering this matter further, but I am not prepared to give him any idea of a date when I may be able to make a further report to the House. The last time I did that, because I was about three months late in giving that report, he has never lost an opportunity since of reminding me of that fact. So he will get no estimate, by hook or by crook, from me of when I can make a further report.
My hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price) said that some people did not think it right that a contract of this nature should be entered into by people so young, since this was completely at variance with the normal law of contract. He is quite correct, of course: it is completely different from the normal law of con tract. But this is not, in legal terms, a contract, but an agreement entered into under the provisions of the Army Act which the House is today being asked to continue—

Mr. J. T. Price: I apologise for having left the Chamber for five minutes. When these boys are recruited, from whatever source, does any consultation take place with the parents or guardians of the boys? This is an important aspect of the question, which I could not explore

in detail, because I wished to obey Mr. Speaker's desire that we should make progress. But I pursue it now because I want to know whose authority, apart from that of the child leaving school, is ever sought when these enlistments take place.

Mr. Reynolds: The consent form signed by a youngster of 15 or 16 on joining the forces has to be counter signed by his parent or legal guardian. To give some idea of the time available for consideration both by the parent or guardian and the youngster himself, I would point out that there is usually a gap of about two months between the preliminary stages, of recruiting a youngster and the date that the final forms are sent. He then goes to H.M.S. "Ganges", or whatever establishment is selected, and then—this applies in the Army and all other Services—in the first three months, if the boy is seen to be completely unsuitable, he will be sent home. So there is plenty of time, and the parents' consent has to be obtained—

Mr. Lubbock: The Minister may have made a slip of the tongue. Has not the period been extended from three months to six months now?

Mr. Reynolds: I was talking about the two months while the necessary enrolment is done and there is another three months during which the Service itself will sort people out, and perhaps reject them. What the hon. Member is talking about is the six months' service during which the youngster has the right to purchase his discharge for £20. That is slightly different.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire raised one other matter with regard to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), dealing with the discipline of the Army. The decision in question was taken entirely by the Divisional General, Major-General Crum, without any consultation with the Ministry of Defence, because there is no need for consultation on whom he decides to invite to divisional or other conferences.
Major-General Crum invited the right hon. Member to address the Fourth Divisional Conference in Germany in a few months' time, and the right hon. Gentleman accepted. However, after he


had made a certain speech which caused furore in the House and the country, the Divisional General, again entirely on his own discretion and consulting no one in the Ministry, decided that, in view of that speech, it would be better to with draw the invitation. He therefore wrote to the right hon. Member withdrawing the invitation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wrote back to Major-General Crum returning his letter to him with the avowed threat of publicity if it was not reconsidered, and asked that it should be reconsidered straight away.
In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the withdrawal of his invitation from the Divisional General, the latter then got in touch with the Ministry of Defence, asking for advice on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State then wrote to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, saying that the General had withdrawn the invitation and that he had the support of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence for his action. That action is, of course, the original invitation and its withdrawal. Ministers were not actually involved in either decision, but they support the action taken.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since what has gone before might be slightly misleading, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us think that it is a good thing that senior Army officers should invite politicians of all shades of opinion to talk to them?

Mr. Reynolds: This is something which is often done. When in opposition, my right hon. Friend himself often addressed meetings and conferences of this nature.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: If the Government accept it as a good thing that politicians should address Her Majesty's Forces, is it not a very dangerous precedent for the Government now to say that a certain politician should not go because he has made a speech which is considered controversial?

Mr. Reynolds: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I was saying, he would have heard me make it clear that Ministers were involved in neither the

original invitation nor the withdrawal of it. The decision having been taken by the person responsible for issuing the invitation, he has the support of the Defence Ministers.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Minister said that the Secretary of State endorsed this action on the part of General Crum.

Mr. Reynolds: I also explained that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had refused to accept the withdrawal of the invitation. The General then asked the Ministry of Defence what he should do. It was decided that, as the individual concerned was a right hon. Member of the House, it would be better if the General's decision was conveyed to him by a Minister and if he were told that that decision had the support of Ministers.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I pursue the point one stage further? These revelations become curiouser and curiouser to my simple mind. Is it now stated as Ministerial policy in the House that any high-ranking officer can invite whom he pleases from the House to address troops? Have not the troops got votes which they register under special arrangements? Could not the situation arise where, immediately prior to an election, the officer concerned could display his own prejudices in the matter by inviting his pals, as they might be from the other side, to address the troops and influence their votes? Is not this a serious matter?

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot accept that there is any such danger. These are divisional conferences for officers in the division. They are usually arranged any thing up to six, eight, on even 10 months before they take place. It would be a very knowledgeable divisional general who was able to forecast the decision on the date of a General Election so far ahead. This practice has been going on for many years. I do not believe that there is any indication whatsoever that the sort of thing my hon. Friend fears has ever occurred or will ever occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Reynolds.]

DEFENCE (ROYAL AIR FORCE)

The Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1968, [draft laid before the House, 30th October], approved. —[Mr. Reynolds.]

ARMED FORCES AND RESERVES (RUN-DOWN)

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move,
That this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have announced no plans to arrest the run-down of Her Majesty's forces or of the reserves, particularly in view of the changed situation in Europe and of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation communiqué in Brussels.
I do not intend today to dwell unduly upon the many changes and reversals of Government defence policy since 1964. They have left behind a trail of broken pledges, abandoned commitments, and dissillusioned friends and allies through out the world. All that is a matter of record and it has been discussed on a number of previous occasions here and elsewhere.
What I will assert is that our present defence preparations and plans are now inadequate to provide us with reasonable security, either at home or within the framework of our alliances. As a result of the major decisions which were taken last January, the Government are now contemplating with apparent equanimity a run-down of our forces involving a reduction of no less than 20 per cent. in Service manpower and the abandonment of even the semblance of home defence.
As for the so-called general capability, which is all that is to remain of our power to intervene outside Europe after 1971, this will consist merely, so the Secretary of State has told us, of what we can spare—and, one might add, deploy—out of our assigned contribution to N.A.T.O. in the European theatre.
Even of the previous package of cuts after devaluation the Secretary of State said this on 27th November:
The effect of these cuts on the capability of the Services is that the Services will be operating on narrower margins over large areas of equipment and stocks …

I frankly admit that there is an element of risk here, an element of risk which I would be reluctant to take in normal circumstances … I believe that the degree of risk is one which, in the current situation, is acceptable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th November. 1967; Vol. 755. c. 66–7.]
I do not believe that the risk was acceptable then. It was even less acceptable as a result of the January decisions. It is certainly not acceptable now, in the aftermath of the brutal Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and in the face of growing naval power in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.
The wider issues of the strategy of the free world and Britain's part in it, including our position in the Gulf and the Far East, were reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in the debate on the Address on 31st October. All I will reiterate today, as my right hon. Friend did last Thursday, is that, while we in no way contest the Government's decision in support of N.A.T.O., the danger is that the Government do not pay sufficient attention to what my right hon. Friend described as creeping expansion round the flanks of the free world. Indeed, the Government are actually abandoning positions which are vital to the strategic defence of the free countries.
I have great sympathy with the view, which was expressed by Minister of Foreign Affairs for Portugal, Mr. Alberto Franco Nogueira, at the meeting in Lisbon in October of the Atlantic Treaty Association:
The N.A.T.O. Alliance should not be in different to the preservation for the West of vital strategic positions. We have never understood, for example, how one can separate the North Atlantic from the Southern Atlantic or how one can ensure the security of one without taking into consideration the security of the other.
When the Secretary of State spoke as he did in Brussels of the need for a fresh look at N.A.T.O.'s command structure, I hope that he bore in mind the need for some re-organisation of the naval command structure and what my right hon. Friend described as the fluffy area of command in the North and South Atlantic areas. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity this evening to tell us that it is the Government intention to resume full co-operation with South Africa and take the maximum


advantage of the Simonstown Agreement in defence of our routes round the Cape. Perhaps, at the same time, he could con firm reports that the Government are now reconsidering their ban on military exports to South Africa for external defence.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the right hon and learned Gentleman advocating a South Atlantic Force; and, if so, at what cost?

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): He wants us to help in Angola.

Mr. Rippon: I say that it is important that we in N.A.T.O. should take steps to protect our position, not only in Central Europe, but in the Southern Atlantic as well, and we should take note very seriously of what our Portuguese allies say in this regard.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: It is important to get this clear. Are we to understand that the Opposition are advocating a physical British presence of some kind, naval or otherwise, in the South Atlantic, in addition to a physical presence in the Gulf and in South-East Asia, if they return to power?

Mr. Rippon: What we are advocating is a N.A.T.O. presence there, the full use of the agreements that we have, and the full use of the forces which the Government still allow us to possess.
What we must consider most particularly today are the immediate defence implications for us and for N.A.T.O. of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the consequent change in the balance of forces, and, above all, the nature of any future threats and our ability and will to react to them.
I will not attempt to analyse Soviet motives and intentions. The facts are that the Russians were able to move about 250,000 troops across a frontier in five days and that they remain in Prague. So we have learned, during the course of this process, the danger of optimistic illusions about an early detente. More specifically, as paragraph 10 of the N.A.T.O. communique says:
… prospects for mutual balanced force reductions have suffered a severe setback.

In defending the run-down of our forces, the Secretary of State, in the defence debate last March, made much of the revision of the strategic thinking of N.A.T.O. which had been agreed last December. He said:
First, the Alliance has now agreed to take its opponents' intentions into account as well as their military capabilities, and sees those intentions as broadly peaceful at the moment. In the second place, N.A.T.O. has agreed that since the factors contributing to the present situation are unlikely to change overnight, the Alliance is likely to get a period of political warning should Soviet intentions change, in addition to the expected military warning of troop movements and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 196S; Vol. 760, c. 60.]
We now know a good deal more about Soviet military capability. As to intentions, as the N.A.T.O. communiqué says,
The use of force and the stationing in Czechoslovakia of Soviet forces not hitherto deployed there have aroused great uncertainty about the situation and about the calculations and intentions of the U.S.S.R. This uncertainty demands great vigilance on the part of the Allies ".
Apparently, a great deal of time was spent at the meeting in Brussels in discussing the need to warn the Russians of the consequences of further action either against their own allies or against uncommitted countries. In paragraph 6, the N.A.T.O. communiqué gives what can only be described as a veiled threat to the effect that members of the Alliance could not remain indifferent to any development which endangered their security, and that
Clearly any Soviet intervention directly or indirectly affecting the situation in Europe or the Mediterranean would create an inter national crisis with grave consequences.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain what that means, for example, to Austria, Finland, Yugoslavia or even Israel. If it implies any new commitments, how are we to meet them? How can we undertake new obligations when our ability to honour even those which we still stand by is so much in doubt?
The Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, have been singled out for special criticism by the Soviet Union for the firm reaction which they displayed to recent events. To most of us, that counts to their credit, but at the end of the day it is action, not words, which will count. It seems that the


threat does not lie in any lack of military or political warning but in military ability and the political will to react. Whatever the nature of the warning time may be, it is of value only if it is heeded and acted upon.
It is now accepted, I think, that Russian troops could strike at the heart of Europe with little or no warning. In these circumstances, speed of decision, military and political, will be vital. As I understand it, the essence of current N.A.T.O. strategy is based on the so-called flexible and balanced range of appropriate responses, conventional and nuclear, to all levels of aggression or threats of aggression. Presumably, that is intended to allow for the knowledge that no Government, let alone a collection of Governments, are likely to take a decision to use nuclear weapons automatically or except in the face of an unambiguous and total threat.
I agree with the view of the Secretary of State that if there is an all-out Soviet attack on Western Europe, N.A.T.O. exists to ensure that nuclear weapons would be used to resist it and that tactical nuclear weapons have a rô le in this respect. I agree also when he says that the real danger in Europe is not of a totally unambiguous attack; it is of a conflict the beginning of which is limited in size and geographical area, to meet which N.A.T.O. must possess sufficient conventional forces to control it, without resort to nuclear weapons at all. if that be possible.
The new N.A.T.O. strategy accordingly demands increased emphasis on conventional weapons, munitions and tactics and much additional training.
Yet"—
as General Lemnitzer said at the Lisbon meeting,
with all this emphasis on conventional forces, this new guidance came precisely at a time when a number of NA.T.O. countries were considering, and in some cases actually making, reductions in their conventional strength. The inconsistency here is very apparent. In order to execute this new concept effectively, the means must be there.
The lesson of recent events in Europe ought to be clear to us. We must halt the run-down of our forces and the destruction of our system of reserves.
Paragraph 8 of the N.A.T.O. communiqué calls for a collective response in order to improve the quality, the effectiveness and the deployment of N.A.T.O.'s forces. However, all that appears to be contemplated—no doubt, the Secretary of State will deal with this more fully—is for the most part either the redeployment of existing forces or the cancellation of future defence cuts.
The Government's own proposals for redeploying our forces, particularly in the Mediterranean, are welcome as far as they go. But is it realistic in this situation for the Government to assert that we face no new commitment which will affect the planned run-down of the British defence budget and forces? I understand that that is their position at present.
The House will wish to take note particularly of the decision to order a further 20 Harrier vertical take-off aircraft and the announcement that a carrier, commando ship or assault ship will be "almost continuously" in the Mediterranean. No doubt, we shall hear what the phrase "almost continuously" implies. It would be even better if we were to hear that we are to consider reversing the decision to pull out of Malta, where we are abandoning modern facilities, married quarters and barracks and an immensely valuable defence in vestment.

Mr. Healey: I shall try to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions, but he will help me a little if he will give an unequivocal assurance that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to build up in Malta.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: No, it is not our job to give such assurances.

Mr. Rippon: What we must know is how the Government think that they will react effectively to what has taken place in Europe and how they will effectively protect the southern flanks of Europe, and protect our N.A.T.O. allies in the Mediterranean, fulfilling the new commitments and obligations which they appear to have assumed under the N.A.T.O. communiqué, without making any change whatever in their policy to run down our forces and reserves.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Healey: I shall answer that, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question? He says that it is desirable that we should build up again in Malta. Is that the policy of the Opposition? If not, is not his question pure humbug?

Mr. Mayhew: Will the Opposition answer that question?

Mr. Rippon: I asked the Government whether they would consider changing their decision in that respect. It seems to us that they ought to do so. We are asking them why they still adhere to their previous view in face of the changed situation. We want the Government to give an assurance that our naval forces in the Mediterranean, in conjunction with our allies, will be sufficient for us to carry out our commitments to our allies on the southern flank of N.A.T.O., particularly Greece and Turkey, which require some evidence in the new situation which will give them confidence in our determination to support them.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the question in a slightly different form? What additional cost, roughly, would he spend on the Malta base?

Mr. Rippon: I should spend whatever additional money is necessary to ensure that our forces are adequate to defend our interests and to meet our commitments. It is on the naval front that we can, perhaps, make our most effective contribution to the Alliance. We still possess a strong naval capability in spite of all the Government have done, and the Government have given welcome if belated recognition in their new deployment of forces to the importance of a naval and air strike force.
It is apparently intended that the additional carriers are to be provided so that another squadron may be stationed in Germany. But I hope that the order is also an indication that the Government recognise the potential rôle of the Harrier in naval aviation. We should be grateful if the Secretary of State would tell us how far his present thinking takes account of the operation of fixed-wing aircraft such as the Harrier from smaller ships than hitherto. In particular, can he con firm reports that the United States Marine

Corps is interested in the purchase of Harriers or super-Harriers for use in sup port of amphibious warfare? It would be a tragedy if we did not realise the full potential of a weapon which we have developed.
The Harrier is an excellent example of the benefit we can derive from willing the means to support our own technology. The scrapping of the TSR 2 and the wilful destruction of the prototypes has proved a costly as well as a criminal act of folly. That is underlined by what has happened in Europe recently.
I am in favour, as probably almost every hon. Member is, of European co-operation in defence procurement, especially in production. But it seems that many difficulties are raised by the sharing of design responsibilities, as we have found with E.L.D.O. and now find with the proposed new advanced combat aircraft which the R.A.F. and N.A.T.O. need and must have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how they are being resolved. Judging by the report in today's Daily Telegraph, a rather complicated arrangement may have to be made. Perhaps he can also tell us the progress he made in his talks with M. Messmer the other day, which I think were the first he had had with him for a year.
If we are to maintain the quality of our forces—and we agree with the Government that their quality is the main factor—we must be prepared to pay the price of equipping them with the most modern and efficient weapons. But we must have the men as well; our forces must be properly manned and have adequate reserves. We know that the Government are planning on the basis of a total strength of about 341,000 in the Services in 1973, made up of about 79,000 in the Royal Navy, 96,000 in the Royal Air Force and 166,000 in the Army. Those figures involve a reduction of about 80,000 in the present total strength of our Armed Forces, and they are particularly hard on the Royal Air Force, the strength of which is now about 121.000, whereas that of the Army is 210,000 and that of the Navy is 96,000.
Such reductions are not compatible with the defence of our interests and the maintenance of our obligations. What is even more alarming is that the present levels of recruitment cast doubts on our ability to achieve even those reduced


figures. There were a number of interesting speeches on that point earlier today. No doubt the Minister of Defence for Administration, in the second speech that I hope he will be allowed to make, will say something further on it.
The Government have been quite frank about the position. The Secretary of State readily admitted in the defence debate on 25th July:
Recruitment has fallen heavily during the last 12 months…. The figures in the current year are so far even less encouraging.
The Minister has already said something about that. The reasons for the short fall are not hard to find. They are, primarily, the virtual ending of the prospects of overseas service outside Europe; uncertainty about the future; frequent cuts in the size of the forces, involving further amalgamation of regiments; and such matters as the disbandment of the Argylls, which has caused intense public disquiet, four defence reviews in two years, and the abandonment of the Grigg formula for pay.
To do him justice—we have no dispute about this—the Secretary of State has expressly said that he does not deny that
… the progressive modifications of defence policy imposed on the Government by economic circumstances in the last two years are at the root of the difficulty; … ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1008–1010.]
We want to hear from the Minister how he hopes to improve matters. The considerable increase in the cost of advertisements for recruiting, which, at £3 million a year, is almost double what it was a few years ago, has not done the trick. What new inducements, if any, has he in mind? For example, has he considered the possibility of encouraging three-year engagement periods instead of six or nine, which seem a long time for many people to commit them selves for, even if they are over 16? Can he give an assurance that in the present situation the Government are not pre paring plans for some form of selective conscription?
Even more alarming, perhaps, than the sag in recruiting, and to some extent bound up with it, is the state of our reserves, the shabby treatment of our Territorial Army and the virtual scrap-

ping of the TAVR III, which involve a decision by the Government that we alone of all the N.A.T.O. countries need no form of home defence. I am not sure that this is yet fully understood in the country.
In any event, out trained reservists are well below the level of those of our major N.A.T.O. allies. Even little neutral Switzerland could muster 600,000 men if necessary.
The Regular Army Reserves are, on paper, expected to consist in 1969 of 15,000 in the Regular Army Reserve of officers, plus 43,000 in the Regular Reserve and 2,000 in the Long-Term Reserve. At present there is also the Army General Reserve, which is the pool of about 170,000 ex-National Service men, whose reserve liability ends on 30th June, 1969. It may be said that anyway they are something of a paper reserve since they are a wasting asset when considered in terms of trained fit men of the right age for the job. The Government have already told us that 15,000 of them are currently required on mobilisation to fill gaps in specialist duties in the reserve forces. The Minister announced on 28th November that he plans to meet this requirement from "other sources" as soon as he can. Perhaps he will tell us today what those sources are.
Generally speaking, as a result of the Government's statement of 28th November, the only volunteers who will be available will be the hoped for—they are only hoped for—54,000 men in the reorganised TAVR II. The right hon. Gentleman must tell us how he hopes to achieve that figure. What does he consider is the prospect of recruitment? How does he assess the damage which has been done by the fact that many people believe that the Territorial Army has ceased to exist, in view of the way the Government have behaved and the changes they have made?
It appears that to bring the units of the Regular Army up to war establishment will require all, and probably more, than the Reserves, Regular and volunteer, can produce. With the virtual disbandment of TAVR III, there will be nothing left for home defence and no Civil Defence Corps and no Auxiliary Fire Service, so that—and this must be widely understood outside the House—in the


event of war the civilian population will be left with practically no help, protection or direction.

Mr. Reynolds: In view of the seriousness of that statement, I must make it clear that it is incorrect.

Mr. Rippon: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will break down the figures. We have had some difficulty in following them. At one stage the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that in the event of war it would be necessary just about to double the exisling forces in B.A.O.R. It was suggested that that was a figure of 50,000.

Mr. Healey: Sixty-five thousand.

Mr. Rippon: Fifty thousand was the figure the right hon. Gentleman gave.
When one has doubled the figure, one has taken 65,000 of the Reserve. The TAVR II is a doubtful quantity, as far as reserves is concerned, and the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave related only to B.A.O.R. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give us an assurance on this point, we shall be glad. We should particularly like to know how many people the Government think will be available for home defence through the volunteer reserves.
It is of little comfort to us that up to 100 cadres of eight men each are to be retained to provide the nuclei around which units might be formed in circumstances where it may be necessary to expand the reserves suddenly. If such circumstances arise, how do the Government envisage the recruitment drives taking place? What is to happen about the drill halls which the Government are disposing of at such a rapid rate? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the latest figure of disposals and an assurance that the Government are not arbitrarily disposing of drill halls which have been financed very often by voluntary and public subscription.
It seems to us that these cadres are really only a skeleton force representing a gesture in face of public anxiety and anger at the destruction by the Government of the volunteer forces, the members of which have shown themselves prepared even this summer to do their training, even at their own expense. These people, who have served their country well, are being ill rewarded for their devotion to

duty. We deplore the Government's attitude to the reserves and have placed on record our determination to restore the importance of the Territorial Army and of a genuine citizens' volunteer service for both military and civil purposes.
No one can forecast the circumstances in which we may be expected to expand our conventional forces, or require more home defence, or be faced with a national disaster beyond the capacity of the civil authorities. To take all this further risk with our security, and destroy the spirit of voluntary service that should be welcomed and not despised, all for an alleged saving of £3 million, is as incomprehensible as it is irresponsible.
No doubt we will be told that we can not afford not to go on cutting down our defences. As soon as anyone in this House mentions that it might be right for the country to honour obligations or a treaty or commitments solemnly entered into, he is asked, "Are you prepared to pay for it?" The answer is that we must be prepared to pay for the defence of our own interests and security and to honour our commitments and obligations. What a curious thing it is that we should pay such attention to our own private insurance policies and yet be so unwilling to pay the premium for our power to survive aggression.
No doubt the Secretary of State can confirm it, but from the figures available it would appear that the latest Soviet defence budget represents about 15 per cent. of the gross national product. Of course, we all understand that a balance has to be struck somewhere, but the first duty of the Government is to safeguard the country and it seems to us that defence expenditure, in face of the growing danger represented by recent events in Europe and elsewhere, cannot be contained within any arbitrarily fixed percentage of the gross national product.
Either the nation is adequately defended or it is not. It is our view that the risks the Government are taking with our security are not, in the current situation, acceptable and must be condemned.

5.35 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on his first major appearance as Opposition defence


spokesman. I want to deal mainly with the question of the reserves, recruiting and the size of the regular forces, leaving it to my right hon. Friend to deal with most of the political and strategic aspects vis-à-vis the position in Europe and the events of the last few months there.
It is necessary to get straight at once the factual position of our reserves and what has been happening to the regular forces—and not only in the last four years. Judging by the speeches made opposite, one would think that the run down has been going on for only four years. One must go back rather further than that to get the right impression. I intend to show that the run-down of the last four years is chickenfeed compared with the run-down that took place during the previous eight years under right hon. Members opposite, about which there were no petitions signed by 1 million people incensed by the amalgamation, disbandment or destruction of a large number of battalions. I remind right hon. Members opposite that they were sup ported in this and other things relating to defence objectives by ourselves when in opposition. In contrast to that, we the Government have had to stand constant attacks and carping criticism all the time.

Mr. James Ramsden: Battalions were amalgamated, but which were disbanded?

Mr. Reynolds: I have the table. The Third Battalion, Grenadier Guards and the Third Battalion, Coldstream Guards were two examples. Of course, right hon. Members opposite dodged the issue slightly by calling it "suspended animation" rather than disbandment. I will give further details later in my speech. I have them here.

Mr. Dalyell: Since the Opposition raised the matter of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, will my right hon. Friend once more make it clear that they were offered a chance of amalgamation?

Mr. Reynolds: The colonels of the Scottish Division, particularly those concerned with the Highland Brigade, had the option of an amalgamation of two battalions of that Bridgade or of one

battalion being disbanded. This was the same option as given in the last two years to several other divisions and brigades in the Regular Army, with the sole exception of the paratroops, although I would not like to state that definitely without further checking. All brigades of infantry were given the option. A number decided to secure the reduction of one battalion by an agreed amalgamation.
In Scotland, it was decided deliberately by the representatives of all the battalions that they were not prepared to have an amalgamation and that one of the battalions must be disbanded. It is still not too late, if they wish, for them to change their minds and get an agreed amalgation in Scotland. I suggest that those who are concerned with retaining the glories and history of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in a living form should turn their attention to persuading those with responsibility for this matter to come to their senses and agree to amalgamation if they are serious in their concern for the future of the Argylls. The Government want one battalion less and how that is achieved does not particularly worry us. We are prepared to fit in with local wishes. It is not right for people to make a choice and then try to blame the Government for the consequences.

Mr. Ramsden: It is up to the Government to make up their minds what is best in the interests of the Army and of Scot land and not pass the buck to local people.

Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman is the last one qualified to talk like that. As Under-Secretary of State and then as Secretary of State for War he piloted a plan—no doubt he remembers it—for what he called "large regiments". All the brigades were to be merged into large regiments. He wanted them voluntarily—this is the point. He did not force them to amalgamate. In the same way, we are not prepared to force the Scottish battalions to amalgamate. They must make up their own minds which way they want to meet the Government's requirement. They have a choice now as they did under the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman knows that amalgamations and disbandments have always been done in this way. It is by choice of the Scots that the Argyll and


Sutherland Highlanders should go rather than that there should be an amalgamation of any kind following the decision of the Government that there shall be one battalion less.
I want to talk about the position of the reserves, which we are told we are destroying, and the manpower position in the regular forces. I became interested in the reserves at the time of Suez, be cause I was appalled at the time that it took to get them called up and brought into action. I spent about four years on the Opposition Front Bench helping to deal with defence affairs, and I interested myself in what was happening in the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve, Classes I and II.
As soon as my interest was known, commanding officers of Territorial Army units wrote pressing me to ask the Minister for better equipment and telling me about the terrible position their units were in. Such letters are not sent now. That is because the units have got the equipment that they should have but they did not have it in 1964.
When I became Under-Secretary of State for the Army in 1964 there were about 120,000 men in the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve I and II. The T.A. had an establishment of 180,000 men, but the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) refused to allow the Territorial Army to recruit about 75 per cent. For what reason? For financial reasons. In other words, Her Majesty's Government of that day, now shouting and telling us that we should have a citizen army of one kind or another, for financial reasons would not allow Territorial Army units to recruit about 75 per cent. What is good when the Tories are in Government is apparently out when they are in opposition.
The Territorial Army was organised in divisions and brigades as an Army in its own right. However, I must point out that most units were only 50 per cent. of their strength and no plans existed to use the T.A. as an Army in its own right. So an Army with divisions and brigades was being maintained with a large number of regular major-generals and brigadiers when no plans existed to use those formations.
The position now is completely different from what it was in 1914 and 1939. The contingency plans have all been changed, many of them by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. What they lacked was the courage to do anything about changing the Territorial Army to fit in with the changed contingency plans. The plans existed to move 30,000 T.A. personnel to B.A.O.R. on mobilisation, but they could only be called out on general mobilisation; not when there was just a threat in the air.
Once called out, they would, first, have to mobilise, and, secondly, have soldiers from other T.A. units, the Army General Reserve and from the Regular Army Reserve drafted in to make up the establishment—more than half the men in each unit would be strangers drafted in from elsewhere to make it up—and the unit would have to be moved to B.A.O.R. All this would have to be done in seven days to meet B.A.O.R. contingency plans.
The first thing I discovered was that the plan was impossible to carry out. The reinforcement of B.A.O.R., with the machinery we inherited and the seven days laid down for it to be done would have been impossible—[Interruption.]. This is not ridiculous. This is the position. It could have been found out be fore the debate started. It could not: be done in the seven days available with the position of the Territorial Army as it was in 1964.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, even in the days that he is talking about, the Territorial Army Parachute Battalion had taken part in weekend exercises with N.A.T.O. forces?

Mr. Reynolds: I also discovered that there was no rô le for the T.A. Parachute Battalion laid down by the previous Ad ministration. The T.A. Parachute Battalion had no active rô le assigned to it.
At that time the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve, Classes I and II, had about 120,000 men. We must look closer at this figure. The right hon. Gentleman knows how fictitious this figure was. Many of these men were just names on the books. Anyone who had any connection with the T.A. knows that this is so. Those names were kept on


the books, because every name on the book provided another half dozen or more training days available for the keen members of the units. It was well known throughout the T.A. that there were thousands of men, not active, who were kept on the books in order to fiddle training days to allow the keen men to have weekends out.
Many of the 120,000 were over age. I went into a number of sergeants' messes in my first year as Under-Secretary of State for the Army and I was horrified at the average age of the sergeants. They were over age. Again, there were fictitious figures in the 120,000 figure given to this House. The ages have now been reduced below the level at that time. If I remember rightly, the average age for a sergeant ranged between 40 and 45. These men were blocking promotion to the sergeants' Mess and recruits were leaving the T.A. because there was no hope of pushing out the old and the bold and getting promotion. All these things are well known.

Mr. Ramsden: Nonsense.

Mr. Reynolds: The right hon. Gentleman need not say "nonsense". They were well known.
More important, the units were not related to the requirements of the regular Army. The previous Administration rightly decided, in running down the size of the regular Army, to have a preponderance of teeth arms and to rely on reserves for bringing support arms up to requirement on mobilisation. This was a right and proper policy to follow. The only snag is that whilst they did it for the regular Army they did not follow it through and make sure that the Territorial Army had the right type of unit to meet the changes made in the regular Army when those units were required on mobilisation. Thus, the T.A. did not have the right balance of units of support arms to meet the need of the regular Army.
In the administration of the Territorial Army most interest was in the county infantry and yeomanry units to the detriment of other newer arms in other parts of the country.
Equipment was out of date. The men only had battledress. No combat kit was available. I also discovered in 1964 that

there were no plans at any time in the next 10 years to purchase any. I do not know what the intention was. I suppose it was to carry on with that kind of equipment for at least the next ten years. Many men, out of desperation, bought their own equipment.
Many 25 pounder gunner units had no active artillery rô le planned for them. Yet it was costing £12,500 a year to provide the ammunition for them to go to annual camp. The right hon. Gentleman knew that they were never going to take those 25 pounders anywhere near the enemy. Yet he was afraid to make changes at that time. Wireless sets, transport, mortars and most other equipment of the old T.A. was out of date and rapidly becoming incompatible with regular Army equipment, so it would be difficult for the T.A. to have acted in concert with the regular Army.
There were no plans in existence for replacing equipment when we took over in 1964. There were no plans to buy new equipment, because the previous Administration had no plans for using the T.A. as an Army, so it is understandable. To re-equip the old Territorial Army—in other words, to expand the present T. & A.V.R. II to the size of the old Territorial Army—would cost about £145 million and take upwards of three years. That is the present position and what it would cost to equip what the right hon. Gentleman calls a citizen army.

Mr. Ramsden: Since the right hon. Gentleman has made a sustained attack on the Territorial Army, as it was, and on me as being one responsible for it, perhaps he will allow me to say that I do not accept a word of what he has said as accurate. I intend to deal with this matter when it comes to my turn, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intervene only in case it should be assumed that I accepted a single word of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not.

Mr. Reynolds: I make one last point on this matter for which the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible. I do not hold him personally responsible for all that I have been saying, because he was only in office for a short time. But there were Conservative Ministers in that job for about 13 years dealing with this problem.
We must also face the fact that it is no good having a large ill-equipped reserve Army if at the same time we have not got reserve Air Force and naval forces to back it up—particularly an Air Force. It is no good having men armed with rifles if there are no aircraft to back them up.
But what did right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do? In 1957 they abolished the auxiliary flying squadrons of the R.A.F. They cancelled the air support which should have been available to the Territorial Army if it was to operate as a separate Army. We have only to look at the absence of a reserve fleet when we took over in 1964. I could go through the numbers of operational vessels in the Royal Navy. In 1951 a Labour Government went out of office leaving nine aircraft carriers in operation. In 1964 only five were handed back to an incoming Labour Administration. There are three in operation at the moment. No new aircraft carriers were built during the whole of that period. All they were doing was talk about it. The reserves of the three forces were completely run down.
In the early part of 1964, the R.A.F. had a reserve of 541,000 men. Legislation passed early in 1964 cut that in 1965 to 84,000 men. That was legislation passed by the Conservative Government when the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham was a member of the Cabinet. That is a cut in the reserves which makes anything done by the Labour Government pale into insignificance. The Conservative Government cut those reserves for the Navy and the Royal Air Force either because they were not needed or because the Government were not prepared to pay for them. In my opinion it was a bit of both.
But let us face the fact—I say it deliberately—that the Government were afraid to carry their policy to its logical conclusion and to reorganise the Territorial Army at the same time. They knew that they could get away with cutting the Navy reserves and the Air Force reserves, but they were afraid of the vested interests behind them in the House and in the country, and they dared not do a proper job of reorganising the Territorial Army and making it fit for operational use in the second half of the twentieth century.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: rose —

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. and gallant Member was never in the Territorial Army. He was afloat—and I am not dealing with the Navy at the moment.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: If the right hon. Member says that it was wrong for the Conservative Government to reduce the reserves, how can it be right to reduce them still further now?

Mr. Reynolds: I am not saying that the Conservative Government were wrong to do so. I am merely stating exactly what was done and pointing out how hypocritical it is of hon. Members who, when they were on this side of the House, supported the action which was taken then, but, as soon as they are in Opposition, for purely political motives, start making attacks on the Government when the run-down is continued.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member said that in 1951 the Labour Government handed over nine aircraft carriers to the Conservative Government. He will agree that they were built in wartime. How many of these nine could take all the first-line Fleet Air Arm aircraft?

Mr. Reynolds: Speaking from memory, I think that four of those carriers were completed several years after the end of the Second World War. One of them is now in the process of being converted to take the Phantom IV. But no new aircraft carriers were built during the whole of that period. We discussed the matter in the House. Each year there was a Defence White Paper stating that CVAOI was still in the planning stage—year after year after year. But not a penny was spent on providing it. It was a Labour Government who were prepared to take the decision that this money would not be spent on it. That was what hon. Members opposite wanted to do, but they were scared to take the necessary action. Nevertheless, they attack us for having taken it.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It is nonsense to pretend that we did not modernise our carriers for successive generations of air craft. The right hon. Member suggests


that nothing was spent on the carriers to bring them up to date. In fact, we brought those carriers up to date progressively, and when we handed them over they were fit to operate the present generation of naval aircraft. That was done throughout our period of 13 years in office.

Mr. Reynolds: No new aircraft carriers were built and four were scrapped during the period. Of course money was spent on maintaining those still in operation.
I am glad that the hon. Member intervened, because that will save me wasting more time in dealing with the mini-carriers and the Harriers mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) explained to me, when he was sitting on the Government benches, why such a thing was not possible when I raised this point five years ago. Will he please explain it to his right hon. and learned Friend after the debate is over? That will avoid my wasting time.

Mr. Rippon: Is the Minister suggesting that nothing has changed in five years in a matter involving so much technology? It is absurd for him to conduct the debate in this way. Why does he not answer our questions, deal with the situation as it exists and tell us what is the Government's policy?

Mr. Reynolds: What has not changed is that aircraft still take up as much space in a ship and still need as much maintenance in a ship and still need as many men in a ship as they did six years ago. That was the argument which the hon. Member for Hendon, North explained to me from this bench five or six years ago. It is an argument of space, no matter which type of aircraft we have. The fact that one aircraft can take off straight up and that another is shot off by catapult does not affect the size of the ship, as the hon. Member explained to me. Will he please explain it to his right hon. and learned Friend? He told me that it is the facilities which must be provided which determine the size of the ship. The hon. Member got through to me. If he tries, perhaps he will get through to his right hon. and learned Friend. I am having difficulty in doing so.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: We have always conceded that, in cost effectiveness, the bigger the ship, the larger the number of units. But it is not possible to have a 53,000-ton aircraft carrier when the economy of the country is in the hands of the present Government. Therefore, we have to have smaller carriers. I would point out that, in those days, the P1154 supersonic aircraft was under development for the Navy. The position has radically changed in the last five years. May we know what the present Government will do to provide the air defence of our Fleet in the mid-1970s.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman will find that the R.A.F. abandoned that aicraft before we came into office and finally development was brought to an end after we came into office.
The hon. Member explained the position to me clearly in those days, and I am sure that his statement is still in HANSARD. He explained that we had to have 53,000-ton carriers because we could not get enough aircraft on a 30,000-ton carrier. Would he please ex plain it to his right hon. and learned Friend while I pass to the next point?
In 1964 we were wasting £30 million a year by having a Territorial Army which in no way met the requirements of the Regular Army and which would not have been able properly to back up the Regular Army in B.A.O.R., in particular at a time of mobilisation. I will not go over every detail, but we had to make proposals for setting up in TAVR I and II the units required to support the Regular Army in meeting its commitments in 1967. I must stress that the commitments which TAVR I and II were designed to meet in 1967 were exactly the same commitments as we inherited from the Conservative Government in 1964.
We provided a force of 50,000 men to be properly trained and equipped to meet the commitments. There was a spare element not required at that time by the B.A.O.R. mobilisation plan but which we have since allocated to B.A.O.R. because of further commitments made during the last few years. We provided TAVR III with 16,000 men for home defence; as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham pointed out, it is being disbanded at the end of this year. Two


factors affect that. First, it was announced as one of a number of economy measures on 16th January, 1968. Secondly, N.A.T.O. assumes a longer warning period for action in Europe, which in our view, both in civil defence and in home defence generally, gives us a longer warning period in which the necessary action can be taken.
But the claim made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be no military forces left in the United Kingdom if and when B.A.O.R. is reinforced by TAVR and by regular forces from this country is not true. Thousands of regular soldiers will still be left in the United Kingdom after B.A.O.R. has been reinforced. There will be several thou sand regular airmen in the United Kingdom after B.A.O.R. has been reinforced and several thousand regular sailors in the United Kingdom, once the requirement of the Fleet has been met. Further more, there will be many thousands of reservists who will not be required for a B.A.O.R. reinforcement rô le. We are satisfied that there will be a considerable number of regular and reservist troops in the United Kingdom, after B.A.O.R. has been reinforced, in order to support the civil power or to take such other military action as might be necessary in the United Kingdom.
The position is that we have 56,000 reservists in TAVR earmarked for B.A.O.R. reinforcement. That is 16,000 more than were earmarked for reinforcement from the Territorial Army and AER I and II in 1964.

Mr. Ramsden: It is 16,000 more than is there.

Mr. Reynolds: I accept that. But the units are at present recruited on average up to 73 per cent. as against way under 63 per cent. for most Territorial Army units. We hope that they will be recruited up to 80 per cent. of strength. We should be in a position in another six months where only 20 per cent. of the strength of the TAVR II units will be drafts from the regular reserves or others to bring them up to strength before going to B.A.O.R. compared with the position in 1964 when 50 per cent. of the men in those units being sent to B.A.O.R. would have been drafted in to make up the numbers. We have a much more efficient force from a manpower

point of view to back up B.A.O.R. than we had at that time. Far from having a limit on recruiting for purely financial reasons, TAVR II units can recruit to over 100 per cent. compared with the 75 per cent. limit imposed in 1964.
The TAVR II units are better trained than the T.A. units. They have 24 paid days a year training compared with the 18 days which were available to the old Territorial Army. Furthermore, one-third of them go overseas for their training each year. During this current year 12,000 of them went overseas for training compared with 3,000 Territorial Army soldiers in 1964. We are doing far more in training for the TAVR than was done, or could have been done, for the large number of men in the Territorial Army in 1964.
The TAVR is better equipped for the rô le which it is supposed to undertake. It has modern equipment, and the full entitlement of its equipment. This was never the case with the Territorial Army, and it was never intended to provide the equipment; the cost would have been prohibitive. All infantry units will receive 81 millimetre mortars by the end of this year and 84 millimetre tank guns in 1969. They have combat kit and No. 2 dress. All these are things for which we were pressing during the 13 years while the Opposition were in office. One regular signals officer told me that some of the signals equipment which his unit had was better than any he had seen during any previous three-year tour. We have provided £4½ million worth of new equipment for the Territorial Army since 1967, and we shall provide £2 million worth a year for the next ten years. This is much more per man than was ever provided for the Territorial Army.
We have easier power to call them out. They can be called out while war like operations are in preparation or in progress, whereas the Territorial Army could be called out only on general mobilisation. TAVR units can be called out and get to Germany several days earlier than was possible with the Territorial Army units, which can make a big difference in relation to the reinforcement of B.A.O.R.

Mr. Ramsden: The phrase" on general mobilisation" is not in any Act. The phrase is "on a proclamation".

Mr. Reynolds: That is perfectly right. But that was a proclamation affecting the whole of the reserves. We will now be able to call out the TAVR several days earlier than would have been possible in 1964.
I was with a parachute battalion of TAVR only a few days ago when the men were drawing bounty, both training and call-out bounty, of £100 per man on average, a substantial part of which was completely tax free. We still would like to get 10,000 volunteers for TAVR units over the next year or two. There is a place for them and I hope that in the months ahead, once we have got over today's argument on a censure Motion, we shall have the support of the Opposition in trying to convince people that the TAVR is still an active, well-equipped, well-trained and well-paid force. We have better volunteer reserves, better trained, better equipped and better suited to their rô le than at any time since the end of the Second World War.
I have recently returned from a visit to Singapore where, in consequence of statements about Her Majesty's Government's policy on withdrawal from this part of the world, we are giving up one of our commitments, which is one of the reasons why we are able to reduce the size of the regular forces. I was in Singapore on Sunday, 8th December, to hand over the Royal Naval Dockyard to the Singapore Government. They have appointed Messrs. Swan Hunter in this country as the managing agents to run the dockyard as a commercial proposition. Some people in Singapore were slightly surprised that we were handing over to the Government of another country a dockyard complete with all the equipment necessary to run it so that the agents for that country could operate it straight away as a commercial dockyard. The Treasury minute was £16 million.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite, when in office, walked out of Suez and left £75 million worth of guns and ammunition which has been used against us all over the Middle East ever since. They left guns, ammunition, land mines and anti-tank mines lying on the ground just to be picked up. They were used against us in Aden. They have been used against us throughout the Middle East ever since. Therefore, let us not talk about giving assets to countries

which will make use of them unless we remember some of the stuff which was left behind and which has been used against us ever since. I shall be answering a Written Question from the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) which will give more details about the hand-over of the dockyard to the Government of Singapore.
I took the opportunity on my return to visit the Gurkha transit camp at Barrackpore and the Gurkha Eastern Depôt at Dharan, and to go to Katmandu. The run-down of the Gurkhas is proceeding smoothly. Retraining them to enable them to fit more easily into their villages is going well. The compensation being paid to them for the early restriction of their careers is considered by the vast majority of them to be reasonable. We shall keep an eye on the level of the compensation and the pensions paid to Gurkhas to make sure that any increases in the cost of living in Nepal do not erode the value of those benefits.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will have read various comments in the Press about handing over facilities in Malaysia and Terehdak. Can he say whether they are being used for constructive purposes, or are negotiations going on with the government of Malaysia to ensure that they are so used?

Mr. Reynolds: The arrangement with the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia is that we will hand over free of charge installations of this kind and equipment to enable them to carry on the same functions provided that the local Government requires them for either defence or economic purposes. "Economic purposes" has a very wide interpretation. I should not like to answer off the cuff about the assets to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will drop him a line about the matter after the debate.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Is there any arrangement with the Singapore Government to ensure that those facilities will be available for British forces if required in future?

Mr. Reynolds: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the dockyard in Singapore, it is the other way round.
We have; promised the company managing the dockyard and Messrs. Swan Hunter, who are the managing agents, that we shall make available naval work in the dockyard for the next two or three years in order to assist them in the transition to commercial work. We must, however, face the fact that a position may arise sooner or later whereby, if the company does well in attracting commercial work to the yard, the needs of the Royal Navy for getting work done and the needs of the company to make a commercial success of the dockyard may clash.
However, I do not think that we shall have any great difficulty in resolving this matter. There are on secondment to the company 150 Navy Department officials assisting with the management of the dockyard—three naval officers and 147 naval civilians. With the relationship between the naval staff at Singapore and the company and Messrs. Swan Hunter, I am convinced that we shall be able amicably to resolve any difficulties which may arise. But it is our intention to help the dockyard by providing the amount of naval work for it over the next couple of years which it would have received had it remained a Royal Naval Dockyard.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: My point was whether, after 1971, the refuelling and repair facilities will be available to us by agreement.

Mr. Reynolds: After 1971, of course, as of today or as of 1st December, it is a commercial yard. I have no doubt that like other commercial yards, it will be only too pleased to get any work that it can from whatever source it can get it. Our own military position in that part of the world, however, after 1971, when we have actually withdrawn our forces on the ground out there, is a matter which my right hon. Friend is discussing with other countries concerned in the area. He had discussions with them two or three months ago and hopes to resume the discussions in June next year. I cannot, therefore, make any statement about that at present. The hon. and gallant Member must wait.
I intended to give information on the question of recruiting, but I find that my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) gave most of it in his speech a little earlier. Suffice it to say that

recruiting, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham quoted me as saying, is not at all satisfactory.

Mr. Rippon: Before the Minister goes on to recruiting, can he deal with my question of the future of the Army General Reserve, the 170,000 ex-National Service men?

Mr. Reynolds: Certainly; I intended to do that. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, 15,000 men are at present required from the Army General Reserve on mobilisation. The staff is going right through these figures to see whether this requirement is an active one or whether there have been changes which would enable us to reduce that figure. Also, I announced an increase of 3,000 in the establishment of TAVR II two and a half weeks ago. Those 3,000 posts replaced 3,000 of the 15,000, bringing down the number still further. I am still examining what we can do and I hope in due course to report to the House the Government's intentions concerning the possible future, or lack of future, of the Army General Reserve, but it will not be until after the Christmas Recess that I shall be able to make a definitive statement on this problem.
As well as the factors which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton and by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham which affect recruiting, one of the main factors is that we must get the pay and allowances of the forces right. For this we are dependent, as are all other Government Departments, and private classes also, on the consideration of the Prices and Incomes Board. The Board is at present looking at the case.
We have put to the Board proposals for far-reaching changes in the system of pay of the forces. The Board is considering those proposals and we expect its report next year. If we can get that part of the picture right, that will be one of the main encouragements to make sure that people want to join and stay in the forces.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Prices and Incomes Board is in a position to take into account the needs of recruiting, which was something that the Grigg Committee had to consider?

Mr. Reynolds: Yes, very much so. That is one of the factors which the Board has to bear in mind. I can only say at present that I am impressed by the thoroughness with which the Prices and Incomes Board is going into all aspects of the problem. We shall get its report, which will deal, I hope, with all aspects of pay and allowances, some time next year, when it will be considered by the Government in the normal way.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham suggested a three-year engagement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is fully aware, this problem was considered ad nauseam from 1962 onwards to 1966. At that time, it was decided that it was not the right thing to do. Two months ago, we decided to look again at this option. Everyone who has looked at it since 1962 has come to the conclusion that it is not a particularly good idea, but we are looking at it again to see whether there is any advantage in it. We are doing all we can to improve recruiting.
There is, however, a slight dichotomy in the debate this afternoon. On the one hand, attention is drawn to the difficulty of recruiting. On the other hand, we are told that we should not be reducing the size of the armed forces when their size is rather lower than we would wish because we have not been able to recruit the number of people that we would like to have in those forces.
If one looks at what has happened concerning the forces over the past few years, it must be borne in mind that in 1957 there were 227,000 men in the Royal Air Force. When we took office in 1964, the figure had dropped to 136,000. By this year it has dropped to 121,000. The big reduction took place, not in the last four years, but during the seven years prior to that. I have already referred to the Air Force Reserves.
One must face the fact that the previous Administration decided, announced and continuously supported in this House that we required 182,000 United Kingdom-recruited regular soldiers to maintain our then commitments. That was in 1964. The aim of that Administration was 182,000 United Kingdom-recruited male, regular soldiers. In 1964 there were only 174,000 serving, or 8,000

short of the target figure set by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
We plan to have in the Army in 1971 161,500 United Kingdom-recruited regulars, or 20,000 less than right hon. and hon Members opposite. It has, however, been the constant aim of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others to make sure that this reduction in numbers is closely linked with a reduction in the commitments that these men have to meet and I submit that this has been done.
One must face the fact that there will be a drop of 20,000 United Kingdom-recruited men but, at the same time, during that period, our commitments in Aden, the Gulf and the Far East will all have completely disappeared and those in other parts of the world will have been considerably reduced. This, therefore, gives us a larger number of men available for N.A.T.O. than there were in 1964. That is not the picture which we have been given by the Opposition Front Bench during the last half-hour or so.
In addition, regular Army reserves, which in 1964 numbered 43,000, today number 53,000 and in 1973 the figure will be 66,000. The Motion says that we are reducing the Reserves. I am giving the number of regular reservists, men who have completed a period of regular service. On the regular reserve side, therefore, we shall be in a better position to support N.A.T.O. than we were in 1964, and we will be in an even better position in the 1970s than we are at present.
Criticism has been made from the benches opposite concerning our action in the reduction of the number of infantry battalions. Eight battalions were put into suspended animation, as it was then called—not disbanded—between 1955 and 1957. Thirty were amalgamated to form 15 battalions between 1957 and 1961 and two were disbanded. This com pares with our proposals from 1964 to 1972 to disband 10 battalions and for eight to amalgamate into four. Again, the reductions during the period of the pre sent Administration are, therefore, considerably less proportionately than happened during the period of the previous Administration. These things should be realised.
I believe that the Opposition are out of date. They look back to 1914–18 and 1939–45 and still think in terms of mil lions of men grappling with each other across Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. That is not the position to day. Numbers of men are not the only criterion. Our main defence is in the N.A.T.O alliance with its nuclear shield, to which we make our contribution.
From our man power we want highly-trained, professional sailors, soldiers and aircrew equipped with a wide range of heavy and light equipment, capable of moving fast and safely across Europe or, if necessary, elsewhere. They must be well-educated, properly paid and able to justify the high place that they deserve in our society. It is Her Majesty's Government's aim to try to provide such forces in the right numbers, and I am certain that we shall be able to do it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I find myself largely in agreement with many of the things that the Minister has said. For my part, I regard the run-down in our forces as having started with the 1956–57 White Paper. Our national defence policy has staggered disastrously from then on. We have not had a really constructive Minister of Defence since Lord Head was at the Ministry, and he refused to carry on when Mr. Macmillan formed his Administration.
However, my criticism of the present Government is that although the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence started very encouragingly, and looked as though he would think out a defence policy, events since then have overtaken him. We have seen more and more liquidation of the various parts of our defence policy, according to what ever way the wind blew at any particular moment. Every time he seems to have been overtaken by events.
We had the deplorable sight of the Minister going round the Gulf and giving undertakings that in no circumstances would we leave there, and then, a few days or weeks later, going round and undoing the undertakings previously given. Over the last 12 years our defence policy has not really been a policy; it has been a great piece of "ad hocery" and nothing more.
There have been two number games going on. First, we had the number game of the strength of the Armed Forces. Some of the figures were given by the Minister of Defence for Administration. We started off with the Hull Committee's estimate of what was required in a balanced Army. There was the figure of something over 200,000 persons required. I say "persons" advisedly, because it was always disputed who those persons were to be, whether they were all to be from the United Kingdom or whether there were to be included other people. Then there was the reduction to 182,000 with out any reduction in commitments. A number of us at that time said that even that figure was unlikely to be reached with volunteers, because the figure represented a bigger proportion of the country's male population than had ever all at once been in the Armed Forces at any previous time, particularly in times of economic depression.
It is Lord Wigg, who used to spend so many hours here arguing these things, who has now been proved to be practically the only person to be correct in predicting what would happen.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I remember the sheets of paper which Lord Wigg used to produce, and his estimate was 120,000. In fact, we got 172,000, plus up to 20,000 Gurkhas. Therefore, we did not achieve our target with United Kingdom personnel alone, but with the assistance of the Gurkhas we did.

Mr. Harrison: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because I think that that figure of 120,000 will now be proved to be the correct one.
We got a figure of just over 165,000 and that was arrived at by statisticians, but not by any basic method of working out the balance required. Today, we have got down to an even lower figure as the one we are likely to get.
Then there has been the other numbers game. That has been about the numbers of the various commitments. Hon. and right hon. Members will no doubt remember the commitments which we gave in 1954, and that we would have a certain number of troops—55,000, I think it was—on the Continent of Europe. I am interested to know whether that figure has ever been realised. I think that it is


quite true that we never have realised it or carried out that undertaking which we gave. Similarly, today we have, I understand, a commitment to the withdrawal of a further brigade from Europe and so, again, we shall be unable to carry out a commitment which we have to N.A.T.O.
Again, there were commitments and undertakings which we gave in the Far East. We said we would keep balanced forces there. Those have not been sup plied. We have had undertakings, promises, which were given personally by the Prime Minister to the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia. All these have been gone back on when a crisis came. Now we are aiming at a still smaller Army, apparently, because the Minister said that we are not likely even to achieve the figure which we want and are likely to be about 20,000 below the number which was required.
I referred a moment ago to Lord Wigg. He made a speech at the County of London Yeomanry dinner, in November, and part of that speech got a lot of publicity. That was the part about the unpreparedness of N.A.T.O. for an emergency. But there were other comments of his which ought to be repeated so that attention can be drawn to them. One has just been confirmed, that is, that our Regular Army will be at about 120,000, the way it is going at the moment. Further, he said that we have no nuclear capacity, and because we are relying on a nuclear shield given by somebody else we must bring our Army up to a considerably higher number if it is to carry out any form of rô le in giving us a certain amount of security.
Thirdly, he mentioned the fact that if we are to take on Commonwealth commitments we have got to have adequate forces to carry them out. If we are to have a small mobile force of any sort to carry on the rô le, economies are a pipe dream, because the smaller, better equipped, more efficient, more transportable the force the more expensive, nearly always, is it to get the required results.
Our present risks have been high lighted by the recent Czechoslovak crisis and the pressures which have come from inside the United States since we have withdrawn from the Far East, and if we

in this country are not prepared to shoulder a reasonable burden of defence we shall find ourselves without any defence, and then N.A.T.O. is an empty and a hollow sham. We cannot afford to have a home base which can easily be threatened. There is, currently, no guarantee that we can defend these islands of ours, and the withdrawal of troops to these islands will not help to increase the strength of their defence for the simple reason that if we can keep limited wars, limited troubles, away from our own coasts we thus have a good defence of the homeland and of our base.
It is most important that we under stand that we must have adequate forces if we are to remain a trading nation. The present peace which we have in the world, the present freedom for trade, is largely based on a condition which has been created in the world by American and British strength. These two nations have kept all over the world the opportunity for trade. Unless we are prepared to make a contribution we may find the illusion of defence cuts being paid for heavily by a loss of trade and access in other directions.

Mr. J. T. Price: How does the hon. Gentleman maintain the thesis that one cannot successfully trade in the world without a military presence? I am not a pacifist. I am in favour of having a reasonable means of defence for this country. That has always been my view. How would he explain the situation in the Persian Gulf, which I have visited, where the Americans are present in a commercial sense on a large scale with the Gulf Oil Company, in which we are in partnership with them, and in other enterprises, and have no military presence but seem to be trading success fully while we, with some presence, are also trading successfully to some extent?

Mr. Harrison: That observation is not in the least incompatible with what I was saying, which was that an American and British presence throughout the world had been largely responsible for keeping many sea lanes open. They have inter-reacted on each other to achieve that end.
Whether or not we like it, we have certain Commonwealth commitments as a result of undertakings given by us. If we are to keep our forces in a state of


readiness to enable us to make a contribution, we must rethink this whole matter. Our forces must naturally be run down to a certain extent, but my criticism of the Government is that they have run them down without providing a substitute.
I would like to see an imaginative proposal which would enable British troops to serve with Australian, New Zealand and other units, not necessarily in command. We are no longer in a position to maintain our former line of communication, but that is no reason why British forces should not serve under and with other Commonwealth forces, each supplementing the other. After all, we have had a Deputy Chief of General Staff who was Australians senior officer—I must not be too specific—who certainly until recently held a Rhodesian passport, and a New Zealander who was Chief of Air Staff. I see no reason, therefore, why we should not integrate our units and so take up part of the slack which has been caused by the run-down in our reserves.
I would like to think that we may have confidence that those responsible in the Ministry of Defence, and particularly the Minister, are thinking a little ahead of events so that instead of having to face the next cut by slashing about and breaking undertakings, the right hon. Gentleman is thinking more deeply—as he appeared to do at the beginning of his term of office at the Ministry of Defence—to work out an overall plan for our limited resources and how to use them most effectively.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): Unlike the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison), I wish to speak on a more limited topic; namely, the proposal to disband the Argylls. This matter is of considerable interest in Scotland because while the Scots are not a military people, they have always produced good fighting men. The Argylls have been a regiment of which we in Scotland have been extremely proud, as we have been of all the Scottish regiments.
Recently the Argylls have been strongly in the news, partly because of their gallant, efficient and soldierly conduct and partly because of their striking Commanding Officer at that time. The pro-

posal to disband them has, therefore, caused much concern, emotional and other, in Scotland. Much more interest has been caused than one might normally have expected from an operation of this kind.
Those who are disturbed by the proposal to disband the Argylls include many Scots who vote Labour. This is, therefore, not a matter affecting a section of the Scottish people. It is an issue which concerns people of not just one political persuasion but of all three—although nowadays I should say of all four parties—in Scotland.
The situation has been somewhat aggravated by the award given to Colonel Mitchell, the regiment's Commanding Officer. It is a shame that he did not get the D.S.O. Considerable resentment has been expressed by the Scottish people because he was given a very minor award. I appreciate that this is a matter for the Army and that no politician should intervene. Without wishing to do so, I must make it clear that this has caused a good deal of anger among the Scottish people.
Other issues have bene raised, including the fact that Colonel Mitchell was not promoted. There is nothing in this. Like many others, I realise that a soldier must expect to be moved not only upwards but also horizontally, so to speak. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked about him having been driven from the Army. That is nonsense. It never was likely to be true and has proved not to be true. However, the failure to give Colonel Mitchell what seems to me and many other Scots to be the distinction which he deserves, and instead to have given him a minor award, has done much to strengthen the feeling which exists about the disbandment of the Argylls in Scotland.
The decision to disband this regiment is, as has been pointed out, only one stage in a very much longer process of disbandment and amalgamation. There is no reason to argue that this process should stop simply because it has reached the Argylls. However, Scottish regiments have already been considerably affected, remembering that Scotland is not a big country and does not have a large number of regiments. There has been the amalgamation of the Cameron High landers with the Seaforth Highlanders,


and that has meant a reduction of one regiment in Scotland. Then there has been the amalgamation of the H.L.I, with the Royal Scots Fusilliers. Both of those amalgamations occurred when the Conservatives were in power.
Among the amalgamations which are being achieved under Labour administration occurs an interesting parallel to the disbandment of the Argylls which many Scots will recall. One English regiment, the Gloucesters, are about to be amalgamated. Hon. Members will remember the way in which the whole nation was saluting the Gloucesters not long ago, as we were recently saluting the Argylls. It was not simply the Gloucesters as a regiment that had done extremely well but also the regiment's Commanding Officer, who was made very much a public hero at the time. Nevertheless, the Gloucesters are being amalgamated with the Hampshires, although there is no similar public outcry.
One wonders whether the outcry in Scotland is rational. Many people undoubtedly base their view on sincere and strongly-felt sentiment, but it is not a rational movement, and on this issue the Opposition have not been taking a rational or justifiable attitude.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Has the hon. Gentleman found that in Scotland support for the petition has been coming from many people who feel very deeply about the question of our defences as a whole and the Armed Forces, persons who have not only no connection with the Argylls, but no connection with the Army, who regard it as a petition which represents a deep feeling of concern about the way in which our Forces as a whole are being run down?

Mr. MacPherson: I do not disagree with that. I did not specifically indicate that as one element. I intended to refer to the petition later.
This does not validate the kind of criticism which has been made of the Government. The rundown of the forces is not being done casually and for no reason. The Government have been giving their reasons for it, our reasons, the country's reasons, and it is no use simply saying," I shall sign a petition

because I am against the rundown of the forces ". That is not a rational position to take. The Opposition have not been taking a rational position. They have said on several occasions that we have now reached the stage in these amalgamations and disbandments, when we must stop. They have said that there should be no further cuts, not in British regiments but in Scottish regiments. Why? If there is to be a rundown, whether it is agreed or not, why arbitrarily choose a particular point and say that it must stop there? Why should it be said that English regiments may be disbanded and amalgamated, but that there should not be further amalgamations and disbandments of Scottish regiments?
Undoubtedly, many hon. Members opposite and their supporters in the country have chosen this point because there happens to be much sympathy for the Argylls, and they can, therefore, combine their party political point of view with a good deal of sentiment in Scotland about a very distinguished and glorious regiment. But a disbandment itself is only one of two possibilities, three if we include that suggested today—suspended animation, disbandment, amalgamation.
The position does not seem to be fully understood by the Scottish general public. Nor is its understanding helped or assisted by hon. Members opposite who criticise the Government. The decision to reduce the brigade by the junior member was a decision by the Army Board which passed to the Council of Colonels of the High land Regiments the question whether the reduction should be made by disbandment or amalgamation. The Council of Colonels recommended disbandment. One wonders why, for no reason has been given.
In our political system we have many situations in which decisions are recommended, and in practice made, as in a case like this, by a body which is not expected to give reasons. In view of the current criticism of non-participation and the enthusiasm for participation and explanation, to which the Government have given some kind of modified blessing, I do not know how long this will last; but it is an unhappy situation that no reason should have beeen given to the Scottish public for the decision to advise disbandment instead of amalgamation.
Another thing which is not fully under stood is that it is still possible for the colonels to change their minds. If they met again and said that they wanted to think a second time, the Government have already said that they would accept a recommendation for amalgamation instead of disbandment. I do not know why they should not do so. The Government should ask the Council of Colonels to meet again and reconsider, asking them also, if they still decide that the regiment should be disbanded, to give their reasons which the Secretary of State could then make public.
There is a great deal of disquiet, but much of it is because there are unknown factors in the situation and much could be allayed if those factors were known. In a newspaper recently, the Chief of the General Staff is reported to have said that he felt sad that the Highland colonels should have chosen disbandment rather than amalgamation; and disbandment is, therefore, not necessarily the soldiers' point of view. It is the point of view of one small group of people who represent the Highland regiments. It is not necessarily the point of view of the Scottish people that the Argylls should be disbanded rather than amalgamated. If it were put to them, I have no doubt that they would favour amalgamation rather than disbandment.
A third choice would have been suspended animation—but that is just disbandment under another name. Suspended animation would mean that the regiment was, in fact, disbanded and only its material possessions would remain. It is not an effective third choice, although the phrase remains.
There is such strong feeling in Scot land that my right hon. Friend should take up this question again. If the Government do not want to go over the heads of the colonels, one can understand that, but one may also say that there are occasions when there ought to be a departure from practice, and this could be such an occasion. The Government should consider asking the colonels to meet again to consider this matter in the light of Scottish opinion, asking them, if they decide that they are still in favour of disbandment, to give their reasons so that the Scottish public may be made aware of them.

Mr. A. Woodburn: In the course of his researches, has my hon. Friend found that the campaign for the Argylls has been carried on from Stirling Castle, and has he discovered any reason why that should be so? Presumably Stirling Castle is Government property.

Mr. MacPherson: I notice that some meetings have taken place in Stirling Castle, and I have assumed that those taking part were wise enough and sensible enough to make sure that they were acting within the rules. I do not suspect them of breaking any rules. The castle is an attractive and picturesque setting, and I have no doubt that it would attract the organisers of the petition as being the depot of the Argylls. I have not discovered whether there was anything wrong about that, and I did not try to discover it. I assumed that they were acting with in the rules.
As to the Argylls being chosen, the Opposition in an earlier debate poured scorn on the notion that seniority should be the guide; on the idea that a junior regiment should be chosen because it is junior. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has spoken of this idea in words that I forget but which were quite unjustified. The ordinary back bencher must surely have thought it a sensible rule to use. Amongst the Scottish regiments, one cannot pick and choose on merit. One must have some kind of automatic criterion such as this.
Another reason given for not selecting the Argylls as a unit to be disbanded has been their recruiting record. From my own Front Bench have been quoted the comparative records of three units over three months, but it was suggested from the Opposition that the three months chosen were bad months, and that perhaps some other period would have been better. But this would apply to any three months, or six months, or 12 months; some would be bad, some good. I do not doubt that the recruiting record of the Argylls is very good—any regiment that has been in the position of the Argylls and done as they would have been a great recruiting attraction—but this is not a reason for making a decision on that basis just now. Two or three years hence the Gordons or the Queen's Own Highlanders may find themselves in a similar kind of difficult


fighting situation as the Argylls, and I have no doubt that in such a situation they would acquit themselves just as well. They, in their turn, would then become a centre for recruiting. To me, therefore, that does not seem to be nearly as strong an argument as the critics are inclined to make out.
A further point is the so-called pledge made by the Opposition that if they are returned to power before the Argylls are disbanded they will—and I must read the phrase because it is difficult to remember—
… seek to find a way of retaining an appropriate place for this regiment.
Politicians are notorious for using ambiguous language, but could any statement be more pitiful than that?
The petition has been organised largely in my constituency, and appears to have been signed by rather more than 1 million people. Of the two main groups who have signed it, the first appears to me to be the large body of people who are strongly affected by the achievements of the Argylls and feel, as I do myself, that the regiment deserves great praise and encouragement. That view cuts across all parties: we have a lot of Labour people with that feeling, and who have, therefore, signed the petition. The second group consists of those who believe that whatever a Labour Government do is wrong, and that a petition is a jolly good thing to use as a stick with which to beat the Government. Some people will have signed for other reasons, but I think that those are the two main groups.
The second group it was that started things off. The petition was begun, I believe, by a group of Tory politicians and ex-officers of the Argylls. Incidentally, I do not know why, in all the accounts I have seen and in all the newspapers I have read, I have never found any reference to ex-privates or ex-n.c.o.s taking part in the organising of the petition. All the top directing seems to be done by ex-officers. But the politicians and the ex-officers were able to get a lot of help from the Scottish Conservative Party Central Office and from Scottish Conservative constituency parties. They also roped in a public relations firm, and the events of the last few days

have, no doubt, shown the value of that move.
Even with these unfortunate characteristics of the organisation of the petition—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that he is not suggesting that ex-privates and ex-n.c.o.s do not support the petition wholeheartedly.

Mr. MacPherson: No, I was making quite a different point. I have no doubt that far more ex-privates and ex-n.c.o.s have signed the petition than have ex-officers. I pointed out that the people who direct the campaign do not appear to include—judging from the photo graphs and the lists of names that I see in my local newspapers and other news papers—any ex-privates or ex-n.c.o.s. That was my point, and I think that it matters.
I understand that the petition will be delivered to Parliament tomorrow, and that will be the end of it, except that the Committee on Public Petitions examines the signatures, though not with that degree of care with which they were formerly looked over in such cases. The Committee will no doubt turn down a number of signatures—

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I am not quite clear about it, but has the hon. Gentleman signed the petition himself?

Mr. MacPherson: The answer is, "No". I would perhaps have signed the petition had it been organised simply on the basis of the first group of signatories I mentioned—those who wished to express their pride and admiration for the Argylls—but a petition which has mingled up in it Conservative Members of Parliament, the Conservative Central Office, and so on, is not the kind of thing I want to touch, in spite of my sympathy with so many of the people who have signed it.
Incidentally, I notice that one news paper says that among the signatories were three Russians from Omsk. I do not know whether Omsk will prove to be a suitable address to the Committee on Public Petitions, but I suspect that it will not.
But even if the Committee discards 100,000, or a quarter of a million—or


even hall a million—signatures, there will still remain a very considerable expression of opinion from the Scottish public. Despite the fact that petitions are not now, Parliamentarywise, what they were, but are rather more like publicity stunts, and despite all the deficiencies and suspicions, there is involved here a considerable expression of Scottish opinion. It is not by any means opinion based on one small group of Scotsmen. That being so, I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the matter again in the light of my suggestions.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I will not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm Macpherson). As a Scotsman, he will agree that for a Welshman to do so would be to imperil that Welshman's own future.
So far in this debate we have had realised some of the worst fears expressed in earlier debates, that this would be come virtually a party issue, with hon. Members arguing who has done most; who has run down more things than others. If a debate like this proves any thing, it is the need for a Select Committee on such matters as defence, where we could have intelligent appreciation of our defence needs rather than attempts to score party points. Irrespective of party affiliation, defence is of vital importance to us all. Views on defence very often cut across party lines, and I do not believe that a debate on a censure Motion, particularly at this time, is the right procedure.
It has been rightly said that the run down of our forces began as far back as 1956–57, and that since then there has been a steady progression of rundown. Three points seem to me to arise. First, is it right that this rundown should be taking place? Secondly, has it taken place in the right sphere? Thirdly, are we in a position today to meet our defence commitments?
On the first point, it seems inevitable that this progress should have taken place. We had great commitments as an imperial Power. As our power declined and our imperial rô le changed, as the situation evolved, it was inevitable that we should cut down on commitments, and this we did. We would have done it whichever Government were in power.
The timing might have been different, but the process was inevitable. I do not follow the argument that, because we have had a commitment, it should be a commitment for ever. We entered into commitments as a great imperial Power and it is ridiculous to suggest that we should cling to those commitments when our power for fulfilling them has gone—

Mr. Ramsden: When the hon. and learned Gentleman starts from the reductions at the time of 1956–57, and relates them to commitments, he is not being quite fair. The reductions in numbers from 1956–57 onwards were associated with the decision to have only regular forces, and to discard National Service. If he is making an important point in this connection, he should take that into account.

Mr. Hooson: I agree that this was partly so—I do not want to take too much time going over the history—but it was also inevitable that we should cut down on commitments. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is at least right on this point—alone on the Opposition benches, it appears—that we have no rô le east of Suez that we can sustain in the 1970s—

Mr. Healey: The point that the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Rams den) was trying to make was in reference, I think, to the commitment that a Conservative Government expected to main tain a number of forces in Germany which they never came near to fulfilling.

Mr. Hooson: I think that that was partly his point, to be fair.
This run-down was inevitable and we must accept that it was bound up with our history. No military Power has ever, in history, been able to sustain this kind of rô le continually. A change happens in its status and this has happened to us. and we may as well face it.
The second question is whether the run-down has been in the right places. Broadly speaking, I think that it has. I am much more impressed by this Government's arguments on defence than by those of the Opposition. I agree with the Opposition vis-a-vis the Government, on many issues, but on defence I am much more impressed—although I have been a considerable critic of the Secretary of State on timing, and so on—by what the


Government have done, than by what the Opposition did when in power.
To take a present example, it would have been impossible for us to reach any political agreement in the Gulf if we had sustained or promised to sustain a military presence. One disadvantage of any country with forces in many parts of the world is that, very often, the very presence of those forces inhibits the political settlement of the problems in the area. This applies to what we did in the Gulf until we made a firm decision to withdraw. A political arrangement there then became a practical possibility.
I still think that the relinquishment by the Government has been too slow. I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on this matter. Nevertheless, generally, progress has been in the right direction and I cannot agree with the criticisms from the Opposition. They always seem to want the best of both worlds. They suggest, on the one hand, that they will reduce taxation, but they will never, on the other, say how much more they are prepared to spend on the forces, when everyone knows that, unless we reduce our commitments, we should have to spend a good deal more money which we are not in a position to do.
We come in the end to this—whether or not we can support Armed Forces of a certain kind depends in the long run on the economic state of the country, and this country cannot sustain the kind of forces necessary to maintain the commitments which the Opposition have argued that we should have maintained—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Is it not fortunate, therefore, that there is very little likelihood of a Liberal Government having to support our trade and shipping overseas, which is essential for our economic future, without the necessary forces to do so?

Mr. Hooson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is fooling himself if he thinks that, by sitting on those benches, and sup porting the Conservative Party, he is supporting a party which has anything to be proud of on defence. He is greatly interesed in the Navy. Between 1951 and 1964, not a single carrier was built in this country. When the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, resigned on the basis

that, if we were maintaining commitments, we should have to provide the forces to sustain them, he was also resigning against a background of 13 years of Conservative rule, during which not a single carrier had been provided—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Because we had plenty, and good ones, too.

Mr. Hooson: I want to come on to the third question, and this is where I seriously disagree with the Government. That is, do we have the forces today to meet our basic commitments to NATO. and for the defence of this country? I agree with the Government that it was necessary to revise our reserve forces and their rôle and to consider how they should best be organised. I entirely agree that the B.A.O.R. reserves are now better organised. I think that the Territorial Army was an insufficient reserve for B.A.O.R. and that it was necessary to revise our whole concept of the reserve forces.
But where I disagree with the Government is that I think that it was a great mistake to run down the Territorial Army as they did. There is a tremendous pool of people anxious to volunteer for this kind of service and it is essential for the country to have a home defence force, not for service abroad, not to fulfil a reserve rôle for our forces allocated to Germany, but to provide a defence force at home.
I do not care if they were not equipped as well as our front-line forces—that would not worry me—but it is vitally important for a country like ours to have a home defence force. We are fooling ourselves if we think that we can anticipate the likely course of a future war. A nuclear war is highly unlikely. The speed with which the Russians mobilised and delivered their forces into Czechoslovakia surprised everyone. We must face the fact that this country itself is vulnerable to attack. We do not know what contingencies our people would be called upon to face. In these circumstances, to let the Territorial Army run down was a great mistake.
There is an overwhelming case in Britain, now more than ever before, for a first-class Navy and an adequate Territorial Army. A home force, territorially based, is an important safeguard. During


the defence debate last year, when I said that the Territorial Army was not only a safeguard against attack from outside, but was also a constitutional safeguard, there was much laughter from the Conservative benches. But I repeat it. It is a great safeguard for our constitution as well. There are people, territorially based and not part of the regular Army, who have a training in arms. It is, in the end, a safeguard against a military takeover in any country, and, although it is highly unlikely that any such takeover could ever happen in this country, it is still within the bounds of possibility. This is another reason why we should have home forces territorially based.
On the issue between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench today, which is remote from a detached consideration of the adequacy or otherwise of our reserve forces, I have been much more convinced by the Government case than by the Opposition case.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am sorry that the support offered by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for the Government petered out before the end of his speech, especially as I thought that the last point he made about the vulnerability of Britain to invasion is hard to sustain in the light of changes in defence technology. I assure him that the conception of an armed invasion of Britain looks very foolish in the light of the capacity of nations, and of N.A.T.O. in particular, to intercept fleets of troop-carrying planes. I am talking of conventional attack. If he studied the threat of an invasion to this country from this angle, he would find it less alarming than he made out.
As for the rest of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, I was glad that he was supporting the Government, because I am in the happy position tonight of being able to offer the Government my wholehearted support. I see my area Whip on the Front Bench to celebrate the occasion.
We have now achieved the right defence policy with, broadly speaking, the right defence structure. The stages by which we reached this happy outcome could be argued about. I have seen it suggested that we have been witnessing over the years the unfolding of a gigantic,

consistent master plan for changing our defences. Others of us remember incidents on the route which lead us to take a different view of the journey.
Nevertheless, here we are at last with, in my view, a defence policy which is realistic and which, for the first time in 20 years, approximates to a balance between our commitments, on the one side, and our resources, on the other. How badly we have needed that in recent years. My only reason for looking back on the journey which has led us here is to make the unhappy point that in the course of this the Opposition, now very enthusiastic about an east of Suez rô le, are still under the spell of the old speeches of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. So persuasive were my right hon. Friends and so gullible were the Opposition that they now regurgitate in the House, less eloquently, quotations from the old imperialist orations which I used to hear from my right hon. Friends.
It is this that undermines the Motion, because there is an obvious contradiction and inconsistency between attacking the Government for failing to react to the changed situation in Europe and, at the same time, maintaining that Britain should keep a military presence in the Persian Gulf, in South-East Asia and, so we are now told, in the South Atlantic.
As my right hon. Friend explained, we are now making a greater contribution to N.A.T.O. than before. We are able to do this increasingly, simply because of the realistic policy of withdrawing our presence from South-East Asia and the Persian Gulf. This is why it has become possible to react, as the Government have reacted, promptly and effectively to the new threats in Europe. The policy which the Opposition are advocating—of going back east of Suez, of reintroducing a presence of some kind in the South Atlantic—would inevitably weaken what we can do to react to the new threats in Europe.

Mr. Ramsden: No.

Mr. Mayhew: We shall look forward to hearing from the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciles the two concepts.
With a given number of reserves at whatever level, and with a defence budget at whatever height, to the extent that this is spread over the world—to the ex tent that it is spread to South-East Asia


and the Persian Gulf—inevitably the impact which can be made on events in Europe is relatively weakened. We look forward to hearing from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of these apparently conflicting views.
We are told—there is much truth in it, I believe—that if, which heaven for bid, the Opposition ever returned to power they would not re-establish them selves in South-East Asia and the Persian Gulf. It is my belief that, having won the election, they would start a great defence review, and that the overseas Departments, briefed by the Chiefs of Staff, would lay down their minimum defence budget, and then the Home Departments, supported by the Treasury, would lay down their minimum defence budget, and a vast gap would be disclosed in the traditional way between the two defence budgets.
Then the Opposition would start looking at the facts of life. Undoubtedly, a Conservative Minister would then have to go round the world, as Labour Ministers have been round. Some Conservative Minister would have to go to Australia, to Singapore, to Malaya, to the Persian Gulf, and say," We are sorry. We promised you, but"—I suppose they would say—"the balance of payments problem bequeathed to us by the pre ceding Government was even worse than we expected", or words to that effect. This is what would happen. Right hon. Members opposite are only making politics with their talk of returning east of Suez. Faced with the facts, faced with the Chief? of Staff's appreciation of the expenditure involved and of the number of ships, troops and aircraft involved in going back, the Tories would do exactly as my right hon. Friends have done.
It may be right that the Opposition, if returned, will not go back there. I judge that they will not go back. One of the troubles is that by stating that they intend to go back there they are unsettling one of the policies being pursued by the Government now in the Persian Gulf and in South-East Asia. Since the Government's decision, announced in January of this year, to leave these places, contrary to everything that those who supported the east of Suez rôle said, so far from causing chaos, unsettlement and a

vacuum in those countries, at long last the statement by the Government that they were proposing to leave in 1971 has, as those of us who were east of Suez critics predicted, resulted in the countries out there looking realistically at their problems for the first time for decades and beginning to co-operate with each other.
There was an admirable article in this week's Sunday Times explaining the impact in the Gulf of the Government's decision to withdraw and pointing out something which was forecast on these benches. The fact that we are to with draw has at last encouraged all the Rulers of the Sheikdoms in the Gulf to face reality a little, to sink their quarrels and, indeed, to talk about federation, something which we have all been unsuccessfully pressing them to do for many years.
Meantime, every speech made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the new shadow Secretary of State for Defence, whom we all welcome to his post, in which they say that in 1970 or 1971, whenever it is that they hope to win power, they will go back on what Her Majesty's Government are now doing, will cause chaos, unsettlement and friction in those areas which are now going ahead well.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will have heard the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) talk about Malta, the South Atlantic, and bringing up the strength of the Rhine Army. Has my hon. Friend made a cost calculation of the programme put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Does my hon. Friend agree that it must come to an annual defence budget of at least £4,000 million?

Mr. Mayhew: The estimates on this vary. I think that that is the largest estimate I have heard. The Government has costed it at £600 million. I would cost it at a little under that—about £300 or £400 million—being a moderate calculator. It is true that it would add vastly to the defence budget, though how vastly would depend on what was done. Here a great cloud is left. No one knows exactly what the Conservatives would do. All we know for sure is that there will be a physical presence on the mainland of Asia and of the Middle East, and some thing or other in the South Atlantic.
None of us knows what the South Atlantic commitment is to which the shadow Defence Minister has committed his party. He quoted with approval the Portuguese Foreign Minister. What does the Portuguese Foreign Minister want us to do?—to go to help him in Angola. Before he commits the Opposition to these wild and extravagant commitments, which the majority of British people would unquestionably reject, the right hon. and learned Gentlemen should become a little more sophisticated. All we know for certain from the speeches of his right hon. Friends is that there will be a physical presence on the Persian Gulf and in South-East Asia.
It may be said that, according to the way the Opposition put it, it will not cost much. But they are saying that they are willing to co-operate in military operations on the mainland of Asia and the Persian Gulf outside the United Nations. If they do not mean that, they do not mean anything. How much will that liability or commitment cost? They say, "It is all right. We shall not fight very hard. It will be only a limited British commitment. We shall not spend any money on it, or not much, and we shall not use many men. We shall not have any expensive new aircraft. We shall not have any carriers. We shall make do with some sort of Heath Robin son contraption, involving Harriers ".
They will try to do it on the cheap. They will be there physically, our troops will be there, they will accept their commitments, but they will not spend enough money to do the job properly. And, if the going gets hot, they will come out. They will leave their friends in the lurch. There is no alternative.
That sort of paper peacekeeping is the worst and most criminal policy of all. To be frank, it is what my right hon. Friends were doing until a year ago. They were doing it, and now the Opposition are making just the same mistake. They will have enough commitments and enough troops there to get involved, enough commitment to make enemies, enough commitment to create tension, even to provide aggression, but never enough to master the situation, to deter aggression, or to defeat aggression if it takes place. It is the worst of all worlds, and complete nonsense.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: rose —

Mr. Mayhew: All that makes so much more difficult the urgent and immediate task of strengthening our contribution in Europe.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the threat to N.A.T.O.'s flank. Again, the Opposition have got it all wrong. The threat to N.A.T.O.'s flank is not coming in the Persian Gulf It does not come even in Greece or Turkey, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. It is doubtful that the main threat to N.A.T.O. and its southern flank arises from the Warsaw Pact declaration.
In my view, by far the most dangerous threat to N.A.T.O.'s southern flank comes from the increasing power of the Soviet Union in the Arab world. Nobody who studies how the Soviet Union's influence has grown, and who considers for a moment how it could lead to Soviet bases not only in the U.A.R. but in Algeria, can fail to realise that. Against that sort of threat to N.A.T.O.'s flank, all the talk about the Persian Gulf is totally irrelevant.
If the Opposition insist on commitments outside the N.A.T.O. area, they must look much more carefully to making a proper contribution towards Middle East settlement between the Arabs and the Israelis than towards affairs in the Persian Gulf and South-East Asia. In fact, with the exception of the Syrians, about whom no rational prediction can be made, the Arabs are deeply reluctant to be dependent on the Soviet Union. Hon. Members may be sceptical, but I assure them that that is so. However, if they are reluctant to be dependent on the Soviet Union, the Arabs have one passion far stronger than anything of that kind, namely, their passion to see Israel withdraw from the conquered territories under the terms of the United Nations resolution. So deep is that passion that they will go anywhere and ally themselves with anyone who, rightly or wrongly, they feel may help them towards that objective.
In that situation, the Arabs look about the world. On one side, they see the Soviet Union, in which, admittedly, they have been disappointed before. On the other side, they see the United States, with an attitude towards this problem which was correctly described by Governor Scranton recently as one-sided, and


they see, also, presidential election campaigns the traditional feature of which is assertions of one-sided support for Israel in the struggle, a feature which led on this occasion, in the United States, to, in my view, very rash promises to escalate the arms race in the Middle East by sending Phantom jets to Israel.
If we are to talk seriously—I hope that the new American Administration will think about this—about N.A.T.O.'s southern flank and the Soviet threat to the free world, we must look at the situation in the Middle East. Let us consider our policy towards Israel and the Arabs. I believe this to be the most crucial area for decision confronting the incoming United States President.
Recently, at the meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council, the Soviet Union was called upon to obey United Nations principles in Eastern Europe. It would be more realistic if the N.A.T.O. Council had called on Israel to follow United Nations principles in the Middle East. N.A.T.O.'s interest in a settlement is enormous, not only because of the danger of escalation, not only because of the undermining of N.A.T.O.'s security, but also—this is not often realised—because, if there is no settlement in the Middle East, Israel will not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and, if Israel does not sign, there will be no Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will not work. From every point of view, N.A.T.O.'s interest lies in reaching a settlement.
Is there anything further which N.A.T.O. and we can do to make the chance of a settlement more likely, be sides doing what we can in diplomacy and using our influence with the United States? I believe that there is. If one looks at the growing crisis in the Middle East clinically and without emotion, simply considering how one can unjam the log-jam, one is drawn to the conclusion that the aim to go for is some how to persuade the Israelis to withdraw under the Security Council resolution. If they do withdraw, the Arab Governments will still find it extremely difficult to meet their part of the settlement, to control the Al Fatah and other Palestine organisations. But, if the Israelis do not withdraw, no settlement is conceivably possible.
Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether there is anything we can do more than we are doing now to persuade the Israelis to withdraw. What is stopping them?—partly the historical and religious associations with Old Jerusalem, but mainly, I am sure, because they do not believe that they will ever have security on their old frontiers. That is the key.
The short-term temptations for the Israelis now to dig in on their new frontiers are great. These new frontiers are strategically far stronger. Now, the Israelis dominate the Middle East militarily. They can say that, by their policy of reprisals, they can keep the Arabs quiet. They are giving themselves time to make nuclear weapons.
The temptation in the short term to dig in and stand fast is strong and growing in Israel. I regret to say that opinion on this matter is hardening in Israel. But, in the longer term, that temptation will be tragically suicidal. Nuclear weapons will no more protect the Israelis against the sort of military operations which can be mounted against them than they can be effective in Vietnam to bring about a solution there. In the longer term, reprisals will, without doubt, be counter productive. Their colonial problem will become worse and worse. Inevitably, as the years go by, the Arabs will simply grow angrier and stronger as the technological, military and diplomatic balance moves in their favour, till, in the 1970s, we have a new and worse war than ever before in which Israel will be likely to be destroyed as a State.
Can anything be done to increase the prospects of a settlement? The security we now offer the Israelis for withdrawing is as follows. They can get a treaty, but they ask," What is the use of a treaty? Anyone can tear it up, or a Government can be overthrown." They can unquestionably get demilitarised zones and United Nations forces, but they say," What is the good to us? We had the United Nations before and it did not work. It does not shoot. It is not a military Power." Third, they can probably get some kind of Soviet-American underwriting of the guarantee, but they ask "What use is that? Who can expect them to act together or to act quickly, or are we likely to get one acting without the other?"
All these things seem to the Israelis not to make sense. I think that the Israelis are wrong in this. I do not think that the Arabs would attack if the Israelis accepted withdrawal under the Security Council resolution. I am only saying what they believe, which we must take into account.
Obviously, N.A.T.O. and W.E.U. can not do anything. Their underwriting the settlement would cause much resistance among the Russians and Arabs, and there is the problem of vetos. But is it impossible that the Western European countries, acting outside N.A.T.O. and W.E.U. acting ad hoc, might agree to underwrite the settlement in such a way as to give Israel the security she must have? I should like the Government to consider that question seriously. The difficulties speak for themselves. The underwriting would have to guarantee the Arabs as well as the Israelis. It would have to be in addition to the treaty, in addition to the United Nations, and in addition to the Soviet-American guarantees.

Mr. Goodhart: The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should give guarantees to the Israelis. But we have given guarantees to the sheikhs in the Persian Gulf, agreements which we have now broken, with his approval. Why should we not break the guarantees to the Israelis?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have waited until I had drawn a comparison between commitments to defend on the mainland of Asia and the mainland of the Middle East from the point of view of military feasibility, political need, Britain's moral and legal commitments and the urgent need for peace keeping. On all those counts I am saying that what I suggest is practicable and necessary in comparison.
If the Opposition want, as I do, Britain to take the lead, to make an act of peace keeping and to accept urgent responsibilities which are in her interests, let them look nearer our doorstep at a problem which is very urgent and is getting worse. Although I see all the difficulties of what I am suggesting, no other alternatives seem possible. What will work better? Let the Government consider this seriously. I believe that the only ray of hope in the Middle East is to give the Israelis sufficient security to withdraw.
On the whole, I congratulate the Government on the defence policy they have now adopted, and my right hon. Friend on the speech with which he introduced the Government's case. I find the Motion deplorable, partly because it is so partisan. It is not necessary to divide the House on a three-line Whip on such matters, because we agree on too much in defence, and there is such a contradiction between the conception of a European defence, which the Opposition are demanding, and the squandering of our resources all over the world, which is another part of their policy. Because the Motion is partisan, and because the Government are now on the right lines, I hope that all my right hon. and hon Friends will support them tonight.

7.35 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: The views of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on the Arab-Israeli dispute were interesting and con structive, and I agree with them to a large extent. But the first two-thirds or so of his speech were remarkably illogical. He seemed completely to have lost sight of the fact that there is nothing inconsistent in this country's playing the most efficient rô le it can afford in protecting its vital interests wherever they may be threatened. I do not draw an artificial line on the map and say that that is the end of N.A.T.O.'s flank. It is ridiculous to draw a false distinction between the rô le we can play in trying to bring about stability in the Arab-Israeli dispute and what happens in the Persian Gulf, saying that that does not matter. That is incomprehensible. I should like to debate the question with the hon. Gentleman at length. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity.
Instead, I shall concentrate on our vital interests at home. My object is to probe the real reason for the Government's decision virtually to disband TAVR III, or the Territorials, as it is easier to call them. We have not been told the real reason, and we have a right to be told. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 17th January:
First, we have looked at defence for a major longer-term contribution towards the reductions in expenditure which we need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1968-Vol. 756, c. 1797.]
"First, we have looked at defence"! There were cheers from the Left Wing.
The Government had looked at defence not last but first, whereas we on this side of the House have always maintained that the first charge on the tax payers' pockets must be the proper defence of the country.
It was not until May that we were told that in the Government's opinion the Territorials were once more an unnecessary extravagance. It was left to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army to tell us this. He said:
… the chances of a nuclear attack on this country have decreased over the years—they have not disappeared,"—
Fancy that!
but they have decreased—and … the risk is now sufficiently small for the Government to be able to make substantial reductions in expenditure on home defence … 
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1968; Vol. 764, c. 1243.]
Out of all the conflicting statements in the Government's attempts to explain their reasons for mutilating and virtually abolishing the Territorials, three have stood out: first, assumptions about the nature of a future war and the breathing space for preparation if it threatened; second, the need for economy; third, the alleged lack of enthusiasm among Territorials, coupled with the admitted failure of the volunteers, other than those in the teeth arms, to attract enough men.
A fourth reason has been given. I have analysed the reasons pretty care fully, and I have not taken that one seriously. It was given when the announcement was made on 28th November of the decision to disband the Territorials. The Minister of Defence for Administration, who made the statement, said that the Government wanted
… to employ the assets of TAVR III to make good the manning shortfall in TAVR II."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1968; Vol. 774, c. 740.]
Since his own estimate, which he made public, was that he did not expect more than about 3,000, or at the most, 5,000, of the Territorials to join the volunteers, and since the manning shortfall amounts to almost 20,000 on establishment, which the Government say they would like to achieve, the gap is so ridiculously large that we cannot take that point seriously.
We were told in the 1965 Defence White Paper that a land campaign in

Europe would not last for many days, and probably would last only for hours. In other words, it would go nuclear very quickly. Last July we were told that N.A.T.O. was placing a greater emphasis on maximising the conventional capability of N.A.T.O. forces. But whether a future war may be nuclear or conventional is entirely irrelevant when one is thinking about the Territorial Army, because it is essential in either case for home defence, to aid the civil power and as a framework for expansion. Those are the views that most of us on this side of the House hold, but the Government apparently take the view that war, nuclear or conventional, is a remote contingency. Witness, for example, the Secretary of State, who told the House in July that
… we can comfort ourselves that the situation between East and West in Europe today is comparatively stable; … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1968; Vol. 769: c. 1019.]
When he said that, the House must have assumed that he did not then know that the invasion of Czechoslovakia could be expected at any time and that the whole of Europe was to be shortly plunged into anxiety and doubt. But, believe it or not, the right hon. Gentleman did know. He told me so on 13th November, when he said
The posibility of Soviet military intervention in Czechoslovakia has been apparent to the West since February this year. The physical possibility has been apparent since July."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 388.]

Mr. Healey: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to correct him. As he well knows, when I spoke in July, I was following a suggestion from his erstwhile leader, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that we should reduce force in N.A.T.O. to help in the Far East, whereas, earlier this year, I was talking about the military situation as between East and West, which was not affected, as I shall seek to show, by the Soviet action in Czechoslovakia in August.

Sir T. Beamish: I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman make that argument. It seems that it will be very wriggly indeed. I hope that he will tell us in plain words whether he is still


"comforted" by the "comparatively stable" situation in Europe. So much for the Government view that the danger of war has so far decreased that the Territorials, the Civil Defence and the A.F.S. can freely be disbanded. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman is also comforted by inside knowledge that, if the unexpected were to happen, as it usually does, it will not take us by surprise. In the 1967 Defence White Paper, we were told that we should probably receive ample warning of Soviet attack in Europe.
The Home Secretary was even more explicit when announcing the disbanding of the Civil Defence. He said:
Cuba blew up very quickly. It is possible to form a judgment that future crises are likely to be longer in developing than that was."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1800.]
Despite knowing since February that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was a distinct possibility and since July that it was virtually certain, that invasion also blew up quickly—quickly enough for the Prime Minister to tell the House that he suffered "a profound sense of shock". The harsh facts of this "comfortable" situation in Europe are well known to us all but they are worth restating in simple terms.
Soviet troops, with established supply lines, are in East Germany, Bulgaria, Poland and the west of Russia as well as in Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia and Rumania are wondering uneasily whether they are next on the Kremlin list. The Soviet defence budget this year is again a record. Powerful Soviet naval forces are backing Soviet subversion throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East. To talk of conditions being comparatively stable and to rely on ample warning of danger arising is wishful thinking of the most dangerous kind.
This is not borne out by the views of the Foreign Secretary and other representatives in N.A.T.O. The N.A.T.O. Council, in its Brussels communiqué, said:
The use of force and the stationing in Czechoslovakia of Soviet forces not hitherto deployed there have aroused grave uncertainty about the situation and about the calculations and intentions of the U.S.S.R.
It was agreed that the N.A.T.O. allies were
… obliged to re-assess the state of their defences.

The sabotage of our ports, of N.A.T.O. air bases in this country, of key positions that would damage our war effort, would concern not only Britain but the whole of N.A.T.O. I hope, therefore, that when the Government complete their reassessment yet again of our defences better provision will be made for home defence and that it will be regarded as a significant and essential objective.
I ask the Secretary of State to deny, if he can, that the decision taken virtually to abolish the Territorials is inconsistent both with N.A.T.O. policy and with the professional military advice he has been given. I ask him to deny that specific ally. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
So much for any military ground for taking this decision to disband the Territorial Army. In fact, there are no such grounds. The Government have had to invent comfortable assumptions to fit their own preconceived ideas and I find this a shocking thing.
Now I turn to the second ground we have been given for disbanding the Territorial Army—the economy that is sup posed to result from abolition. I can not find any economy at all. The figures we have been given are contradictory, misleading, confusing, and, I think, phoney. The short point is that a volunteer—and this cannot be gainsaid—is a much more expensive man than a Territorial—cook the books how one likes. We all know the reasons for this decision. One can leave out the cost of regular permanent staff, Army or civilian or part time; one can assume recruitment of the volunteers to only 80 per cent. instead of 100 per cent. of establishment; one can forget the cost of maintaining 87 T cadres and keeping 100 or so more drill halls. The answer is still the same. The volunteer is still more expensive than the Territorial, although the figures given to the House would lead to a different conclusion.

Mr. Reynolds: Mr. Reynolds indicated dissent.

Sir T. Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman must either do his arithmetic again or explain himself more clearly. He was cheered loudly by the left wing of the Labour Party because he gave the impression that economies would result from disbanding the Territorials, and it is not true.

Mr. Reynolds: Of course, the individual volunteer costs considerably more to train, equip and pay than the individual Territorial. But the total cost of the volunteers as compared with the total cost of the Territorial Army gives a saving of about £17½ million to £18 million and gives much better forces.

Sir T. Beamish: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman arrives at that conclusion. It makes me all the more con fused by his figures. He wants to raise the volunteers from 35,000 to 54,000 or so, and he knows that every one of them, whether from the Territorials or any where else, costs more than a Territorial soldier cost last year.

Mr. Reynolds: Mr. Reynolds indicated assent.

Sir T. Beamish: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees.
The Government's third reason for disbanding the Territorials I shall dismiss equally briefly. The failure of the volunteers to get anywhere near their overall recruiting target has been very disappointing. All of us who care hope that they will fare much better from now on. But why last March did the Under-Secretary of State for the Army deliberately mislead the House? I say "deliberately" because it must have been deliberate. He said:
The Volunteers have made good progress since they came into existence last year.
The facts were that, between July, 1967, and the date of that statement, the volunteers had decreased in number every single month—a total fall of 1,400. That is what the hon. Gentleman called "good progress". The figures went on decreasing after that.
What cannot be denied, however, is the tenacity and enthusiasm of the Territorials, which the hon. Gentleman called in question. On the same occasion, he referred in a derogatory way to the Territorials when he said:
A recruiting limit of 23,000 was set, though in the event numbers have reached only 15,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 483.]
That was also misleading because the Territorials have increased their strength in almost every single month from the time of reorganisation in April, 1967, until the announcement of disbandment was made last January. We thus see

the Territorials run down on the pretence of doing badly and we are told that the volunteers are doing wonder fully whereas they are losing recruits every month. The hon. Gentleman had no right to mislead us, and he owes the House an apology.
There has been no lack of enthusiasm among Territorials. Quite the reverse. It is untrue and unworthy to suggest that there has. They have hung on in adversity, fighting and hoping for survival. Nearly every unit has gone to camp this year and the men have undergone training at their own expense. They have had little enough praise and, so far as I know, not a word of thanks.
It all boils down to this. The Government's three main reasons for disbanding the Territorial Army do not bear examination for one moment.
First, there is no military reason for it. The decision flies in the fact of the best military advice at home and from our allies. Britain alone is in step on this matter.
Secondly, there is no economic reason for it. There is no saving. We have just had confirmation that disbanding the Territorial Army will not save a penny.
Thirdly, to suggest that the Territorials were running down through lack of enthusiasm is untrue. The truth is that their spirit and morale is as strong as ever.
What, then, is the Government's reason for disbanding the Territorials? I am glad to see the Secretary of State in his place. I believe that it is the Secretary of State's personal indifference, even antipathy, to the Territorials—an indifference and antipathy which is reflected in the views of the Prime Minister and more than half the Cabinet. The Secretary of State must be judged by his actions and by his words. He appears to feel neither remorse nor shame at what has happened. He does not look like a man narrowly defeated after a hard fight. He is a strong and decisive man. I would back him almost anywhere to hold his own in a matter like this, supported, as he has been, by unanswerable military and political arguments.
Were those arguments forcefully deployed? I very much doubt it. I have always regarded the Secretary of State as running with the powerful left wing of his party and, to some extent, with the


pacifists;. He has consistently acceded to left wing demands—

Mr. Healey: Oh!

Sir T. Beamish: It is interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman laugh. He has consistently acceded to left wing demands while giving an impression of resisting them. He has been very clever indeed. He inflicts one grievous blow after another on our armed forces, now on the Territorials, but he does not resign. It is high time that he did.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: Having listened to the first two speakers in the debate, there seemed to be an argument going on about who cut down the forces the more. I do not think it matters what size the forces are, provided they are adequate for the task they have to perform. Therefore, although I propose to go through some of the previous debates on defence, I do not propose to criticise where cuts have been made. I believe that cuts were necessary.
I could not follow the argument of my right hon. Friend when he spoke about the Opposition bringing the Air Force reserves down to 85,000. That would have been pertinent if 85,000 was not adequate. What number they are brought down from does not matter as long as the number left is what is required.
I am more interested in the military thinking that has gone into Statements on Defence over the last four years. It will be necessary to refer briefly to each one, because I can at last see a glimmer of light coming through. I would refer to the five Statements as instalments in "Pilgrim's Progress". I am not unhopeful at last that the Minister might reach the eternal city and arrive at the stage where, for four long years, mine has been a lone voice.
First, I will refer to the Statement on Defence in 1965. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend because he has been carrying out basically a Tory policy on defence in Europe. The nuclear strike was the Tory policy. At least my right hon. Friend has been logical in carrying out that policy. If a nuclear strike is intended from the word go there is no necessity for large reserves to call up.
This is where I think the Opposition were wrong if they intended to do that.
In 1965 my right hon. Friend started off by saying that the defence of Europe depended on a nuclear strike and, there fore, there were no resources to be tied up against risk of a prolonged war. That is a reasonable argument if the use of a nuclear strike is intended.
In 1965 it was apparently necessary to keep our forces in the Far East. We were told that it would be irresponsible to abandon those bases. Over the past four years my main shout has been that our main defence was in Europe; if we were short of forces or could not afford other forces it was more important that we defended Europe than the Far East. To that extent I have asked for our forces to be withdrawn from the Far East.
Another point I have consistently made is that when the crunch came, N.A.T.O. would not depend upon the nuclear deter rent. It would be required to provide conventional forces, we were told, to hold the field for hours while the nuclear weapons came into play. The hours got to days and possibly to months. How ever, with no reserves we might as well not have conventional forces, because that will commit us ultimately to using the nuclear strike.
In 1965 we were completely committed to the nuclear strike. Apparently there was no need for any conventional reserves, but it was necessary to stay in the Far East.
In 1966 we were still committed to the nuclear strike. When arguments were put forward that if we built up our conventional forces that would assist, we were told that a build-up of conventional forces would be equalled by a build-up of the Warsaw Pact forces and to that extent they would neutralise one another.
Does that apply to these other forces we are to put into N.A.T.O.? If that argument is true, there is no point in keeping these other forces in N.A.T.O. If they are of assistance now, they were wrong in 1966 in saying they would be of no use.
The Statement on Defence in 1966 went even further. We took pride in saying that we urged on the Alliance to abandon the military preparations


which assume war could last for several months. We took credit for urging on the Alliance that a war in Europe could not last several months.
We were also saying that it was necessary for our forces to be in the Far East to reduce the danger; that no country with any sense of international responsibility would surrender these positions unless satisfied that others would assume the rôle. Have others assumed the rôle? Have others taken over our responsibilities in the Far East? Are we acting irresponsibly? Or was this just another bit of bad thinking on the part of our military planners?
In 1967 we were told that there was little danger of aggression in Europe; that N.A.T.O. can take a more confident view of Soviet intentions than in 1949 or 1956; and that political indications are likely to give some warning of potential aggression. I will deal with what General Lemnitzer had to say in October this year about the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
We reaffirmed the necessity to keep our forces in the Far East.
Coming to February 1968, my lone voice did not seem to be quite so alone. We were told that Britain's defence effort will in future be concentrated mainly in Europe and the North Atlantic area and that adjustments should be made, particularly in the Air Forces, with the object of extending the conventional phase of hostilities should war break out. This would give more time in which any decision to use nuclear weapons could be taken.
We come back again to the Far East, from where I have been urging that we should withdraw over the last four years. The Defence Paper stated:
We shall accelerate the withdrawal of our forces from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf.
If I am correct, I see a glimmer of hope for the future.
We had another Defence White Paper in July of this year—rather unfortunate timing, because it was just before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It stated:
N.A.T.O. defence planning must pay special attention to possible situations below the level which would provoke a strategic nuclear response. With active encouragement from Britain

—we were encouraging in the other direction two years earlier—
the alliance has recently been concentrating on such situations.
In two years we have ceased to urge that there can be no prolonged conventional war and have moved to the other extreme of looking at the possibilities of a conventional war taking place in Europe. We have come full circle. We have arrived at a situation in which we are told that there is a possibility of conventional forces having to be used.
How does the invasion of Czechoslovakia alter the situation? May I quote from what was said by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe when he was in Washington:
The invasion came as a complete tactical surprise.
If that is true, after all that we had read in the newspapers for months previously, and when the people of this country were expecting such a possibility, what right have we to say that in any future possible conflict we should have time to build up any forces at all in Europe?

Mr. Healey: We are dealing with the Territorial Army.

Mr. Crawshaw: Presumably the argument being advanced, then, is that we should never be able to get them in Europe.
If Yugoslavia were next on the list to be invaded, and if Yugoslavia held out and there was guerrilla warfare but the Russians were gradually taking over the Adriatic, would that not be a time at which the Reserve forces might be required to support our main forces in Europe?
Let us face the fact—and I do not know whether the country appreciates it: there are no Reserve forces upon which we could build another army in Europe or anywhere else. The whole of our reserves are committed to plug the gaps in the regular forces. For the first time in the history of this country we shall be incapable of raising a second army if that is required. It would not matter if we had 12 months' warning—we could not do it. Anybody who has had military experience knows that it would take four to six months before we could put into the field our partly-trained territorial troops. If we do not even have the


nucleus of those troops, we can estimate that it would take between 12 to 18 months to put troops into the field.
The argument has also been that there was no point in having these reserve forces because the equipment was so dear that we could not afford it. If we have not the equipment, obviously there is no point in having the men. Even if we had 18 months' warning of a possible conflict in Europe, should we have the equipment to give our reserves, if we had any reserves? Equipment goes hand-in-glove with having the reserves. It is no use having the men if we have not the equipment to put them into the field. It is not, therefore, just a matter of whether we could call out the Territorials tomorrow; it is also a question whether we plan to have the equipment for them in 18 months' time.
But there is at last a glimmer of hope. As we have heard, we are to have a nucleus of 100 units of eight men—another battle of Thermopylae in the offing. Are the Government being serious about this? One of the reasons for suggesting that we have that formation is rapid expansion in time of emergency. What an expansion—100 units of eight men! On what will they expand? At that rate, they could not raise a football team in six months.
All this makes me wonder whether my right hon. Friends are genuine when they produce these Papers and whether the Defence Papers represent what they believe and what their military advisers believe—or whether they are trying to placate my hon. Friends. There are such things as package deals. One of the first things at which the Government looked was how they could cut down our defences. I have always taken pride in thinking that one of the first things we ensure is defence and that that is some thing for which the country unfortunately has to pay. I have said more than once in the House that when the time comes and our defence forces are not to be found, people will want to know where they are and what the Government have been doing while in office.
It is no good telling people that defence forces are not required. They are required. It astounds me that over a period of four years the thinking of any Government could have changed from one extreme to the other. First they said that there

was no need at all for any conventional forces and that any war would be fought over a matter of hours. The American Defence Report, issued in October—and the Government ought to pay regard to it—states:
A satisfactory conventional capability is feasible at planned or moderately increased budget level provided existing forces are used effectively.
It is not that the Western Powers have not the men or the money available. Overall we are spending more on our forces than the Warsaw Pact countries are spending on their forces. It is simply that our forces are not arranged properly to meet their commitments.
I ask my hon. Friends very seriously to consider the situation of the Reserve forces. There is no other country in Europe which has no reserve forces. We are the only member of the Western Alliance which does not have conscription or national service. Surely we are not asking too much in saying that those people who are willing to train as volunteers to serve their country should be given the opportunity to do so.
Having regard to the criticisms which I have made of their policies, hon. Members opposite would be surprised if I went into the Lobby with them tonight. Some of my hon. Friends will be surprised if I go into the Lobby with them tonight. I intend to surprise neither side.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) was, I am sure, not at all surprised when the Secretary of State took to his heels in the middle of his speech because the hon. Member produced an unanswerable indictment of the Administration's present defence policy. He makes admirable speeches on defence and, as we know from the past, he has the courage to back his opinions in the defence lobbies.
I want to look at the recruiting figures over the last few months. On any judgment they must be reckoned to be calamitous. There might be some improvement in these figures if we adopt a three-year recruitment period. This was one statement of the Minister of Defence for Administration which I welcomed. I am glad that the Government are to consider this matter again.
It is more convenient if we can get people to sign on for six years. I can remember when I was asked to sign on for seven years with the colours in the middle of a war 25 years ago. I did so. But even then, with a war on, it seemed to me a very long time. I was 18 years of age. At 18, six years, or seven years as it was then, seems a lifetime. Since then, young men have grown even more nomadic and more mobile in their habits. They chop and change even more quickly than we used to do in the old days. I suspect that a three-year recruitment period will fit the bill far better than six years, although I can see all the arguments in favour of six years, and I appreciate that probably that was the correct assessment some years ago and that many experts still believe it is the right period. But if the numbers continue at their present level, as the Labour Party's former expert on recruiting arithmetic pointed out not long ago, we shall have, not 160,000 men in the Army, but 120,000 men, and I do not believe that that is acceptable even for the present Government.
Most of the argument has turned on recruiting for other ranks. I expect that we shall soon be even more concerned about the state of officer recruitment. A shortage of suitable candidates for com missions takes longer to develop than a shortage of recruits for the ranks. But once it has developed it is more serious and takes longer to correct. Statistics which are emerging about the proportion of candidates rejected by the Regular Commission Board and some disquieting signs about entry to Sandhurst, and particularly the academic level of some of the candidates accepted there, give us considerable cause for concern.
Something could be done to improve this potentially dangerous situation if the Government were to make up their minds about the reorganisation of officer training in the three Services. We have had a lot of reports, many of which have been scrapped, and now there are reorganisation schemes which, it appears, are held up only for want of Ministerial decisions. Surely this is a matter of vital concern to young men, and we should give it the highest priority.
More far-reaching than that is the fact that the career structure in the Army, in

particular, was a major casualty of the decision to destroy the Territorial Army. Over the last two or three years Ministers have recognised that the career structure in the Army has been shattered and they have said that something would soon be done about it. But nothing has been done. Until a viable career structure is introduced for regular officers, we cannot look forward to a satisfactory recruiting situation.
Above and beyond the questions of pay, conditions, training and a career structure comes the question of the rô le of the Armed Forces and its importance in attracting officers. I think that many officers believed the statements in the Defence Review that the major threat to peace and British interests lay out side Europe and they looked forward to a career part of which would be spent in the Far East or Middle East. Now that is no longer the case. It would seem that in future regular soldiers will shuttle almost indefinitely between the plains of Germany, where it seems they will be deprived even of the intellectual stimulation of a visit by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and Salisbury Plain. If a young man wants to hear a shot fired in anger, he is more likely to hear it if he becomes a jeweller's assistant or a sub-postmaster than an officer in the forces in Europe. It is this destruction of a rô le which will play a major part in the fall-off in officer recruitment which we are beginning to see.
The main burden of this debate should fall on the Government's calamitous decision about the reserves. It is plainly against the policy of N.A.T.O. Mr. McNamara, in his farewell trip to Europe as Secretary of Defence of the American Defence Department and in his farewell statement to the American Congress, underlined that an expansion of the mobilisation base of the N.A.T.O. countries should be our highest priority. This was before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Since then, there has been a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, in November, 1968.
The final communiqué, signed in the affirmative by the British Government, said:
The quality of Reserve Forces will also be improved and their ability to mobilise rapidly will be increased.


Everything that the Government have done in the last few months has gone flatly against that declaration of policy.
In opening this debate, the Minister of Defence for Administration said that in the old days, colonels of Territorial units came to him complaining that they did not have proper equipment but that that does not happen now. That is true, but the commanding officers of Territorial units still come to see their Members of Parliament. Certainly, mine have been to see me, not complaining about holes in their boots or that they did not have the latest type of rifles, but complaining that they were faced with total disbandment.
It is not only commanding officers of those units who are concerned. One need only remember the letter signed by all six of the field-marshals when the Government launched on their policy of destroying: he Territorial Army three years ago. They pointed out that by destroying the Territorial Army, the Government were destroying the only protection which the country had against the unexpected.
It may be true, as the Minister of Defence for Administration said, that more per man is being spent on equipment in the reserve forces than was the case prior to 1964 but if the numbers of those reserve forces have been cut to the bone and beyond, it is a figure which does not mean very much.
What we have seen is not the cutting of the Territorial Army, because that implies something keen, clean and swift. In the last three years, we have seen rather the maiming of this force and an attempt to stifle the volunteer spirit.
One has only to look at the figures given for the disposal of Territorial drill halls to find that of the 1,250 which existed in 1964, almost two-thirds have either been disposed of or are to be disposed of. A number have been transferred to other Government Departments. One wonders whether some are being used for the storage of 4d. letters.
There is argument about what we on this side will do in defence when we come back to office. Certainly, we have said that if there is still a wish for our presence in the Far East, we will look at this with our allies and see what we can do to maintain a British presence there. If, again, when we have returned to office,

the position in the Persian Gulf is such that the maintenance or return of a small British force should be thought by the inhabitants of the area to be of benefit in keeping the peace, we will be prepared to put those forces there.
What I have said about those two places is, of course, conditional on the wishes of the local inhabitants and that we should be in no doubt of what those wishes are, but they are not wholly within our command. The reserve forces, how ever, are a matter which is wholly within our command. I am glad that the Opposition have given unequivocal pledges that on their return to office, they will restore a volunteer Force, a citizen army, not exactly of the old pattern, but one which can provide the adequate reserves which the country and N.A.T.O. deserve.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have a simple belief that regardless of party balance in speakers, those who have sat through a whole debate on defence should at least have an opportunity to speak. I will, therefore, be brief, even if this leads me to cut what I had intended to say.
The gravamen of the charge seems to be that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was abandoning a vital number of strategic positions. Here we have to look at cost. My first point, therefore, is a simple question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army when he replies to the debate: what does the Defence Department reckon to be the costs of a South Atlantic force?
This is not the first time that this proposition has been raised. The Leader of the Opposition first floated the idea of a South Atlantic force in the major defence debate last Session. My impression at that time was that it would cost something like £200 million a year on the defence Estimates. I therefore ask the direct question whether that is a likely figure and, secondly, what kind of calculation the Department have made of the Opposition's wishes to retain the Malta base.
I would simply comment that if we are to get involved in the Mediterranean at all, surely we must do it with air cover and with adequate naval forces, because we cannot go halfway in this kind of


commitment. If one has a half-commitment, it is worse than having no commitment at all.
I would also like to know from my hon. Friend the current calculation of cost of the Opposition's wishes to do what they would wish to do in the Far East and the Middle East. I understood the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) to say that in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, whatever else had been proved, it had been shown that the Russians could strike far more suddenly than anyone in N.A.T.O. had anticipated. I would wish to know precisely what deduction is to be drawn from this.
Is the deduction that there should be a build-up of Rhine Army? If so, to what strength? This also raises the question of precisely what the Opposition mean by bringing up the forces to full strength. This was repeatedly referred to during the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. Certain inquiry is needed. The calculation of those who know better than I do is that to bring up the Army and the other forces to full strength would cost at least another £800 million. I would like these figures confirmed or denied.
There is another point arising from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hexham, and that is about TSR2. The argument was that my right hon. Friends have been guilty, among other things, of the criminal and wilful destruction of the prototype. Again, for the sake of saving time, I will put the point in the form of a question. Is it true, as has been argued by Lord Bowden, that the TSR2, though it might have flown in prototype, could never have become an operational plane because it would have suffered from precisely the same kind of metal fatigue which has dogged the F.111 and that the requirements of certain parts of the fulcrum in the TSR 2 would require metals which have not so far been invented? They were of titanium nature, which would resist strains. Is this factual? If the Opposition is to bring up the TSR 2 I think it is about time certain facts are made clear.
As to the Argyle and Sutherland High landers, I content myself with saying that the Select Committee on Petitions will

examine the signatures, and all that needed to be said on that subject has been said much better by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson).
I have a question to put arising out of the speech by the Minister of Defence for Administration. He referred to his own visit to the Far East. What is hap pening to the facilities at Terendak? Are they, as reported in the Press, going to waste, or is some constructive purpose being found for them?
I have another question arising out of Lord Winterbottom's speech in the House of Lords. Is it true that there are serious deficiencies in the professional corps?
Because I am carrying out my promise to be brief I quickly draw your attention to another problem, and that is that if the forces are run down, as I think they should be, what is being done to protect career expectations? Even those who have been anti-east of Suez and many other things, and have been criticised by Members of the Opposition for taking this position, even people like myself who are serious about defence if nothing else, are very concerned about what happens to career expectations. If we do run down the Forces beyond a certain point, I ask whether in future we do not need some different concept of the kind of forces we need, when it really does be come a matter of defending Britain rather than interfering abroad. The old style forces would have been perhaps very good for interfering, for instance, in the Nigerian civil war, but since no longer is there any kind of question of interfering in that kind of war I think one should define in terms the different rô le of the Forces.
This leads me to ask a question about "Opmac". Six Members of Parliament, three Conservative and three Labour, of whom I was one, visited the "Opmac" operations in Scotland with General Sir Derek Lang, on a most successful two-day visit. I welcomed the announcement in a Parliamentary Answer to me that 30 new projects are conceived for next year. The Under-Secretary of State can take great credit for this decision. I wonder if he would tell me two things. Is any consideration being given to taking this kind of operation out of the Defence


Vote? The second question is, is there any way in which some additional finance can be provided for "Opmac" operations? As General Lang has rightly put it and as others have put it, in a sense desirable civilian projects are hindered for the lack of comparatively modest sums of finance which could come from civilian Votes. If this operation is to be continued, surely there is an argument for providing some funds not directly related to the Defence Vote. I am thinking in thousands of pounds, not hundreds of thousands or millions.
Again in shorthand, how is the Government's good scheme going for the link between the forces and industry? If there is time in the wind up speech I hope that the Minister will say something about the arrangement with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. whereby potential officers who enter the forces can keep in touch with certain industrial firms. I should like to know how this is working out.
I look forward to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology going into the defence research establishments. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that the Zuckerman Committee presented a Report to the effect that there must be a drastic reorganisation of the defence research establishments which, in the view of some of us, are out of all proportion to our military capability. For example, while Canada spends about £30 million a year on military technological research, last year we spent £260 million, excluding nuclear and whole sectors of the aircraft industry such as the B.A.C. at Warton. This seems to be out of all proportion to our current requirements.

8.35 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in his burning desire to reduce the size of our forces and overseas commitments to what I suppose he would call a "fortress England", almost by accident stumbled on an essential truth about recruiting. He asked what would be the future career structure of the Armed Forces on the completion of the withdrawal from the Far East and Middle East.
I would not have thought that there would be a long queue to join the Army to serve between Salisbury Plain and the Rhine Army. Nor would I have thought that there would be a long queue to join the Royal Air Force to fly between England and Germany, which can be done by modern aircraft in almost a matter of minutes. All the old adventurous spirit which stimulated recruiting, particularly for fire brigade operations which are now frowned upon, will go.

Mr. Dalyell: That is why I referred to "Opmac" and the importance of that type of operation at home and abroad.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: That is quite a different sort of operation. One does not join the Army to undertake that sort of task.
It is nice for hon. Members who have been in the House for some time to see right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, and particularly the Minister of Defence, back in the fold with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who, I regret, is not in his place. It was only about 18 months ago that that hon. Gentleman was anxious to reduce our defence commitments to what his colleagues in the Administration thought then, I believe rightly, was below the safety line. Hence his resignation. But other forces have been at work, so to speak, the Government have returned to his fold and every body is happy, having reduced the commitments to the size of our economic facility to discharge them.
The hon. Member for West Lothian went on to make the strange suggestion that one way of solving the Middle East dispute between Arab and Israeli, which must cause everyone great anxiety, would be for N.A.T.O. to underwrite some sort of frontier settlement, with Britain, as a member of N.A.T.O., taking part in the underwriting process. But what with? The hon. Gentleman advocates that we should play no part outside Europe. There are no forces with which we could underwrite any settlement of those frontiers. If any hon. Member would like to go through the list of N.A.T.O. countries and speculate which of them would care to undertake that sort of operation, he might be interested to see the answer.
With the exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), I felt, listening to the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I had been in the dress circle watching an historical play in which the dialogue and characters bore little relation to modern times. In an historical play there is not meant to be any connection with modern times, but in a debate of this kind there should be, because fundamentally we are debating the basic security of the State.
When it was said that hon. Members opposite reacted promptly and effectively to the growing crisis, I began to wonder whether I was living in a dream world. To listen to the speeches from the Government Front Bench and hon. Members opposite, one would have thought that the rape of Czechoslovakia had never taken place, that we were back six or seven years ago when the theory was that a great detente was going on between the N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact Powers and that nothing much would happen, that nobody was in very serious danger.
They do not seem to understand the writing on the wall. They do not seem to understand the significance of the rape of Czechoslovakia. They are like a motorist driving down the Cromwell Road when all the traffic lights are red and, in spite of all warnings, wondering, when he gets to the end, why he has a head-on collision. I have never seen such a collection of Ministers and back benchers doing the ostrich act so effectively.
Hon. Members opposite talk about N.A.T.O. as though it were only North-West Europe, all the B.A.O.R., but that is a very limited view of geography in terms of modern requirements or modern strategy. It is no good talking about N.A.T.O.'s northern flank, or even its centre, if other parts of its anatomy, so to speak, are weak. Greece, Turkey and Italy are all N.A.T.O. and Mediterranean Powers. They cannot help it, for that is their geographical position.
A very large proportion of the oil which comes here and to other N.A.T.O. Powers is derived from the Persian Gulf. That is also an economic fact. It is also an indisputable fact that the Suez Canal is closed and not likely to be open for

a long time. Therefore, it is again an inescapable fact that if the Suez Canal is closed, the oil has to go round the Cape. That may not matter very much, but unless the world is a much safer place today than it was three or four years ago—and he would be a brave man who would claim that—anyone with an elementary knowledge of geography or of naval strategy can hardly fail to see that in times of stress and strain Simonstown may have a vital importance.
This was the whole argument in favour of having not a British but a N.A.T.O. South Atlantic force of some kind. There are times when geography should take precedence over prejudice, and the Government's attitude over the Simonstown base makes this one of those times.
We read with interest—and it was quoted again today—that the Foreign Secretary took a very tough line at the recent N.A.T.O. meeting in Brussels over the Russian act in Czechoslovakia. I wonder whether he understood the implication of what he was saying. His American counterpart very rightly mentioned that Yugoslavia would be an area where, if similar events occurred, N.A.T.O. could not sit down and be completely unmoved. Have the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence hoisted in the implications of that?
The Soviet Union has a very heavy preponderance of nuclear weapons and conventional arms. I do not suggest that N.A.T.O. could ever or should ever have a permanent Army on the ground, so to speak, in Europe, anywhere approximating to that of the Soviet Union. It would be quite unwise and foolish for anyone in his senses to argue that. None the less, I am not very happy about the theory that the whole thing hangs on the nuclear deterrent and that we can forget about the conventional arms. If we push that theory too far, we are in the unenviable position that if a coup occurs, be it in Berlin or else where, we have either to accept it, or press the button. It is not a position that I should at all like to be in.
I say this deliberately, because there is a point beyond which it is dangerous to thin out the B.A.O.R., and that point has probably been exceeded already. It is dangerous, because it leaves the Germans bearing the major part of the N.A.T.O. physical defence, that that country is in


the front line. I should have thought that if anything was calculated to restart or rekindle all the embers of the old German militarism that was one way of doing it, and that is exactly what the Government have done. It is also dangerous, because to thin out too much means that we rely ultimately on the nuclear deterrent, and I must repeat that in that event we either accept the coup or we press the button.
I also think that the argument about the Strategic Reserve can be pressed too far. I am a little suspicious of all this. The theory is that the forces come back from the Far East, saving a great deal of money. That is not true, and in any case the economies will not be affected until 1971, and bear no relation at all to the position today. The theory is that they come back from the Near East and the Far East and we concentrate on building up a really effective N.A.T.O. force—never mind those ships in the Mediterranean.
I do not know where the personnel of this great reserve are to go in England. There are not enough barracks for them, and are not enough married quarters, when they are brought back from the Far East. I suspect that they will be demobilised, otherwise there would not be much saving in bringing back battalions from Singapore, which is in the sterling area. That does not save us very much. We have to pay the ordinary rates of pay according to rank. We are saving marginally on overseas allowance, but that is not much. It is a specious argument, but, in any case, that is not my point.
If we thin out too much in B.A.O.R. and all our Strategic Reserve is in England and a crisis arises in which SACEUR asks for reinforcements to B.A.O.R., I can well see what might happen. There would be headlines in the newspapers announcing that a battalion, if we could spare it, was flying from Tidworth to somewhere in Germany. It would be on the "telly", under the glare of the are lights, and all that. I think that the Government of the day, by reinforcing that way, would be accused by those who do not wish us all that well of escalating the crisis.
I am absolutely certain that, with a Strategic Reserve in England, we could not at one and the same time reinforce B.A.O.R. and conduct any other fire

brigade operation at all, because we would not have the bodies to move. Incidentally, I very much doubt whether Transport Command has the aircraft in which to move them. So the idea that, with a Strategic Reserve in England, and everyone back from the Middle and Far East, we should be able to help Singapore or anywhere else in a crisis, as well as reinforce in Germany, is plain "baloney" and the Government know it.
Whatever the Government may say, whatever the Minister of Defence for Administration said earlier, or the Secretary of State says later, no one can so juggle figures as to prove to anyone's satisfaction, let alone confidence, that the reserves are not far lower now than ever before. We are the only N.A.T.O. country with neither National Service nor adequate reserves, and this is very dangerous. No Government except the present one have so destroyed, and taken almost fiendish delight in destroying, the regimental tradition. It is very curious that it is that tradition which has been the envy of almost every continental country. They have tried, in some cases successfully and in others not so success fully, to build their own forces on the British regimental tradition and it is this Government who are destroying that very element.
I repeat, our defences are well below the safety line. The duty of any Government is to ensure the safety of the State. This Government have dismally failed in that duty. In olden days, some hon. Members opposite wrote a book called "Guilty Men", about Munich and the inadequacy of our defences in those days. If our defences, in 1938 and 1939, when the crunch came, were inadequate, if we were naked then, I can only say that we are obscenely naked now.

8.52 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: In the Government's words, the recruiting figures continue to be disappointing and below the levels required, and I believe that this is liable to be the Achilles' heel of this Government's defence policy. There are factors which affect recruiting on a far higher plain and in a broader context than just pay, allowances or detailed conditions of service. I pass over the first and foremost one, the cynical change of policy over a British


presence east of Suez. For sheer cynicism, the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy in 1967 was an all-time low, when, in announcing that decision, it said:
The services will continue to have the indispensable task of safeguarding national security, supporting Britain's overseas policy and keeping the peace.
It went on:
The Navy, the Army and the Air Force, though reduced in size, will be capable of meeting all the demands which may be made upon them.
Whether fairly or not, much of the disillusionment and cynicism which is affecting recruiting adversely is focussed upon the person of the Secretary of State. He started with an excellent reputation in the Ministry. I do not mind admitting that many of my old Service friends used to pull my leg and," You never sent us a chap like that. He has really done his homework ". Ringing in the ears of all Servicemen at that time were the right hon. Gentleman's clarion cries, when seeking office.
In the last defence debate before the 1964 General Election, he expressed these impeccable views:
There is no doubt whatever today—and few on either side of the House would dispute this—that we are infinitely more likely over the next 10 or 15 years to need mobile conventional forces for peace-keeping in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, than to require nuclear weapons, tactical or strategic, independent or collective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 469.]
From this position the Secretary of State has eroded the trust and confidence of Servicemen at all levels until now it is not too much to say that he is anathema to almost every one of them. [Interruption.] I hope that I did not hear the Secretary of State utter a five-letter word.
It is argued by these people that either the Secretary of State does not know that the forces have been cut below the prudent limit, in which case he is not fit to hold a job: or, alternatively, that he knows but cannot carry his point in the Cabinet, in which case, equally, he should resign.
I thought that the Secretary of State made himself despicable by intervening gratuitously and announcing his approval of the decision to ban my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) from addressing a conference in B.A.O.R.
One of the points that the Government Front Bench has been making about the forces is this business of overstretch and the way in which it affects recruiting. From the Prime Minister's speech in Plymouth in 1964 onwards, there has been this recognition of overstretch. Now the cuts which have been applied to the forces have created overstretch which is greater than ever it has been before.
Part I of the magnum opus—the Defence Review, which came out in February, 1966—gave statistics showing the average employment of destroyers and frigates in the Navy, the numbers of units and men sent overseas on emergency or unaccompanied tours, and emergency moves of operational formations to overseas theatres of the Royal Air Force. This was to give a vivid and striking example of the way in which overstretch affected men of the Services.
These figures were designed to illustrate this point and they were given up to 1965. Last week, when I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the corresponding figures for this year, the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy replied:
I regret that it is not in the public interest to disclose this information."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 151.]
In other words, it was in the national interest to publish them in 1966 when they were politically convenient to the Secretary of State, but it is not now in the national interest to publish the figures. The suspicion must be that the figures show that the overstretch is greater than ever before and that it would be very politically embarrassing to publish them now. It is contempt of the House to refuse to give these figures. I ask the Secretary of State to give them when he winds up, or, if he does not give them, to explain why he will not do so. They were published when it was convenient to him. Why will not he publish them now?
Coming to the individual Services and the way in which their recruiting is affected by the Government's policy, I will leave out the Army, which has been very well covered today by points concerning the Reserves. As to the Navy, the Secretary of State started with a


great flourish and said, when he was seeking office:
Let us not forget that, if we are to have a really effective military capacity outside Europe, we must provide air cover for it in the form of naval aircraft … whether we build many small carriers or a new form of vessel with V.T.O.L aircraft aboard, we are likely to incur very heavy costs. These commitments, however, are commitments which we cannot avoid and which in my view … we should not seek to avoid in the years to come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 475.]
Those were the Secretary of State's views about aircraft carriers and V.T.O.L. The subsequent decision to phase out carriers is an abdication of Britain's naval capability, and no officer or rating can see it in any other light. This must affect recruiting. The decision was taken 15 years ago that we would not follow the Soviets down the expensive road of developing surface-to-surface missiles because we had carriers. Now we have no carriers, and the Defence Review said that we should develop a small surface-to-surface guided weapon for use against missile-firing ships. Now we have no surface-to-surface missiles other than a pea-shooter thing called PX430, or Sea Wolf.
The Secretary of State—who is again chattering to his hon. Friends instead of listening to the debate—now consistently refuses even to discuss the need for a small unsophisticated aircraft carrier or "flat top" for V.T.O.L. aircraft. We have again and again asked him to say something about it, but he has shrugged the idea off with a wave of the hand. But now I have information that the naval staff are working hard on the design of a ship of about 11,000 tons for this very purpose. If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
I have to cut short my speech to allow the winding-up speech to begin on time but I do not wish to end without this final word. I have condemned the Government for policies which have discouraged recruiting, I should like to condemn them in greater detail and at greater length, but, despite all my criticisms. I express the personal opinion that any young man will still be well advised to join any of the three Services. I say that because I believe that the pendulum will swing. The nation has been in this ridiculous "run-down the forces" mood

before in our history. As soon as there is an election—and pray God it will be soon—we shall have a Conservative Government pledged to maintain a presence east of Suez and to maintain adequate forces for the protection of our country.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: We substituted this Motion for the usual Motions on the Orders to renew the Army and Air Force Acts partly to help the House since debates on those Motions tend to be rather narrow—I regret that our efforts were not altogether appreciated by some hon. Members opposite—but in the main we put it down because we thought it right to discuss the growing weakness of our regular and reserve forces in relation to the new situation in Europe. However one analyses what has happened in recent months in Europe—commentators analyse it in their different ways—it is inescapable that the situation there now is much more fluid and far more dangerous that it has been for some years.
The Minister of Defence for Administration—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—made a long and rather unbalanced speech in which he hardly referred to the Motion at all. He devoted most of his time to an attack upon the old Territorial Army, as he believed it to have been constituted and organised, and upon me. I shall reply to that later during my speech. We should have had a much better debate, and it would have been more helpful to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman opening for the Government had addressed himself at least a little to what is obviously the main point of the Motion. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who said that the opening of the debate was scrappy, that, if scrappy it was, that was not the fault of my right hon and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who put our view in an admirable speech.
I understand that the main points in the Motion will be met by the Secretary of State when he replies, and I shall be glad to hear what he says. The House cannot but be struck that, in so far as there has been one consistent assumption under lying the Secretary of State's thinking in his conduct of a series of defence reviews,


it has been the assumption that the situation in Europe would continue stable, that the detente existed and was likely to enlarge itself, and that, even if there were to be a change we should have ample political warning of it.
Right hon. Members opposite have not been consistent in their assumptions about the Far East, they have not been consistent in their assumptions about the Gulf, but over Europe hitherto they have been consistent, and I think that I have been fair in the account which I have given of the assumptions upon which they have worked. The House will find them in the 1967 and 1968 Defence White Papers. As recently as our defence debate last July, the Secretary of State devoted quite a long passage of his speech to the possibility of mutual force reductions. We have heard him more than once take credit for leading N.A.T.O. and our N.A.T.O. allies in a reappraisal of N.A.T.O. strategy, based on his assumption that the political intentions of the Soviets were calculable, and, being calculable, should be taken into account by N.A.T.O. in its formulation of strategy. The right hon. Gentleman may still believe that. He may believe that what I think has shown itself to be a weak Government in Russia, and which has been capable of one gross blunder, can still be a predictable factor in our planning. I hope that he will make clear what he thinks.
In the meantime, events in Europe and the Government's attitude cause three points of great concern to those of us on this side of the House. The first is that the Government's predictions about the course of events in Europe, the whole basis of their defence planning over a series of reviews, should have been stood on their head so dramatically and so soon. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) made this point very well, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). Secondly, we are concerned that in the light of Czechoslovakia there is no sign that the Government are reconsidering the cuts they have already planned, on different assumptions, in the size, shape and equipment of our forces.
Thirdly, we are concerned that even given the Government's assumptions about the proper necessary force levels

for the future defence of the country, on which doubt has recently been cast, recruiting for the regular forces and the reserve is now so disastrously bad that there must be concern as to whether even the reduced order of battle on which the Government are planning can be effectively manned in the future. It is be cause we are concerned about those three things that we propose to press the Motion to a Division.
It is true that the Government have three times during the past year assigned extra forces to N.A.T.O. We welcome this, but the assignment of those forces is not really the point, or the whole story. Here I shall try to answer the argument of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) in the first part of his speech. I regret that I had to miss the second part. The point is that if no change is to be made in the plans progressively to cut our defences worldwide over the next three years it must follow that the potential of all three services to confront dangerous and unforeseen events anywhere, including Europe, is steadily diminishing, and, short of a change of heart by the Government, will go on diminishing.
That point is not met by the decision to assign forces that we may have avail able at a particular time to a particular theatre. If we had greater numbers of forces—I am thinking particularly of amphibious and maritime forces—it would be possible to switch from where there was no threat to where a threat existed or was developing. If we have not got the forces, it follows, as the night follows the day, that we shall be considerably weaker. During the next three years all three services will gradually become a great deal weaker than they have been and than they might have been, particularly the Army, about which most has been said in the debate.

Mr. Mayhew: What the right hon. Gentleman said had some logic in it, but my point was a little different. Assuming, as we must, that the Opposition's defence budget is, say, £2,500 million, then to the extent that they retain their presence East of Suez they are bound to weaken their effort in Europe. That is my simple point.

Mr. Ramsden: I do not accept either the budgeting of the Secretary of State


on behalf of the Opposition or what the right hon. Gentleman said. I should have thought that the maintenance of some presence other than in Europe was perfectly compatible, as it has been in our experience in the past, with the ability to switch forces, wherever needed, to the point of danger. It was always accepted that it was within the competence of the Government to switch forces, if necessary, from B.A.O.R. to the Far East. I see not the slightest reason why the same thing should not apply in reverse.
But, as I say, for all the forces, and in particular for the Army, considerable cuts are planned to take place during the next three years. At present, one can hardly pick up a newspaper without seeing a reference to the disbandment of a distinguished infantry regiment. Last week it was the Durham Light Infantry. To morrow it will be the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, to which the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) and other hon. Members referred. It is interesting to note that it is usually the best recruited regiments which seem to be singled out for this fate.
I do not agree entirely with the analysis by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. MacPherson) of what lies behind the petition in favour of saving the Argylls.

Mr. Woodburn: rose —

Mr. Ramsden: I do not want to give way to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), or I shall be as bad as the right hon. Gentleman was.
I think that ordinary people up and down the country have grasped the truth about the disbandment of these famous regiments, which has perhaps escaped some of those who find themselves nearer the problem. I think they realise that the times do come in our history when there are economising Governments and economising Parliaments for whom it is all too easy to solve their problems, or try to, by making cuts in our defences. They appreciate the lesson of history, which is that these mistakes have very often had to be retrieved precisely by the famous regiments which at the present time are the Government's victims. I think that it is this feeling which animates a great deal of the interest in these lamentable pro-

posals in respect of these various regiments.
I do not accept—I said this in a previous debate—the Government's assessment of the number of infantry battalions that we are likely to need in the future. We on this side, when we have the opportunity, will certainly wish to review the conclusions to which the present Government have come. I tried to point out in an earlier debate how dangerous it can be to base one's requirements, particularly those for infantry, on the proposition that they should be tailored exactly to whatever commitments hap pen to be current at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman twitted me and said that the Conservative Government budgeted for the number of infantry battalions that we maintained on precisely this basis. When I told him that, on the contrary, we had maintained eight infantry battalions, unbrigaded and uncommitted, extra to any commitments, he said that that must have been the strategic reserve. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong about that, as he was wrong in a great deal that he said earlier this afternoon about the Territorial Army. If he looks it up, he will see that, apart from the strategic reserve, the War Office maintained eight major units—some of them gunners—in the War Office reserve, all of which were needed at the time when our forces were at a stretch in about 1964. If he and other Ministers are bent on taking risks with the level of our forces, at least they should be familiar with recent experience.
These planned reductions are to continue, and that is all the more alarming because the present recruiting figures are so bad, especially for the Army. We understand that to keep the Army at a level contemplated by the Government the need is to recruit 16,500 men a year or thereabouts. This year it is going to be about 11,000. It was described in another place as disastrous and there is hardly another word for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) called it calamitous. It justifies both expressions.
The Government are quite frank about the position but they seem to be totally and unwarrantably complacent about it. There is no sign that they are prepared to take any action to put it right. There are two reasons why recruiting is bad.
The first is that the pay is inadequate and the other that the prospects are inadequate.
Since 1st April, when the Grigg formula for service pay and conditions was finally and definitely overthrown, Servicemen have been kept on rates of pay at least 5 per cent. lower than their civilian counterparts were getting as long ago as 1st April. The earnings in civil life have gone up by 5 or 6 per cent. since then. The Services do not know under the present formula whether they will be made up to what is their due and they certainly do not know when. This is the first thing that the Government should put right. What the right hon. Gentleman said today about the Prices and Incomes Board was far too indefinite.
Then, on prospects, it is not enough for the Government to make speeches and display posters saying that the Services will continue to provide a worth while career. Of course, they will. Every one knows that and that even this Government will not last for ever. That is not the point. The point might come home to the House if it considers the position of a young man contemplating making the Services a career. At the point when he has to make up his mind whether to join, he will probably en counter a certain amount of dissuasion from his family and of chaff from his friends. If he is to take the plunge, he has to have something to put against this. All he can have is the conviction, which he needs but which he may not express audibly, that defence is serious business and the nation's business and that the Government take it seriously and will not sell him out or devalue his efforts.
That is the climate of opinion behind the Services which the Government by their succession of cuts have failed to create. It is exactly the climate of opinion discouraged by a large body of their supporters who are not here tonight but are elsewhere, no doubt plotting the downfall of the Government on Wednesday, and who go around the country appearing on platforms and television saying that the cuts already made are inadequate and asking all the time for more and more.
If the Government are to get recruits, these two things have to be put right.
They have to take action to bring up the pay and allowances to a position at least comparable with outside rates, and they have to change the climate of opinion so that people contemplating a Service career will have the genuine conviction that it is worth while and that they have the Government behind them.

Mr. James Dance: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolute lunacy to run down the Corps of Gurkhas at the moment when there is no problem of recruiting and they are, on the whole, very reasonable troops to maintain?

Mr. Ramsden: While the Government have commitments which the Gurkhas can assist them to carry out, we all wish to see sufficient Gurkhas maintained to do that, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Ramsden: I will not give way again, because I want to finish by halfpast nine.
The recruiting figures cannot be allowed to go on in the present way. I hope that we shall hear some definite proposals from the right hon. Gentleman tonight for doing something to improve them.
I come now to the reserves. If recruiting for the regular forces is bad, recruiting prospects for the voluntary reserves at the moment are equally bleak. The position about regular reserves, I think the Government will agree, is not too bad, but regular reservists are used to bring up existing formations in the services to war strength and are not available to man up any additional formations which may be needed in time of war. This is broadly true.
I should remind the House that the Government cannot—I will not say fight a war, because that is an unfashionable concept these days—even put the Rhine Army or any of the rest of the forces in a proper posture of defence preparatory to war without calling on the voluntary reserves. This has been the position for about ten years—since the ending of National Service. I say now to the Minister of Defence for Administration that during every one of those 10 years during which that has been the position


there has been in existence a workable plan for balancing the Rhine Army for war with the assistance of the voluntary reserves. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon denied this and implied that those of us who were responsible at that time had failed in our duty by not having a workable plan so to reinforce the Rhine Army. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he persists in saying this, I shall, as is my right, send for the papers and seek to convince him of his error. This plan existed in the days of the old Territorial Army, and the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in making the assertions which he did this afternoon.
We handed over to the present Administration 115,000 or so voluntary reservists. The right hon. Gentleman said 120.000. Give or take 5,000, we handed over about 115,000. Of these, about 50.000 were for the reinforcement of the Rhine Army. They were available, in accordance with the plan, and the equipment was available for them. If it had not been available it could not have been made and constructed in time for the Government to issue it to the TAVR II. The part of the Territorial Army committed to that task amounted to about two divisions. The units to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would not have had to be made up to strength by the use of ex-National Service Reservists. These would have been used for reinforcing the remainder of the Territorial Army for home defence. The two divisions would have supplied the elements now found by TAVR II. They would have gone to reinforce the Rhine Army. The remainder, in very considerable numbers, would have been available either for home defence or as quite well trained men in the basic skills of gunnery, infantry or tank warfare to give second line reinforcement to the Regular battalions.
As we handed it over, the Territorial Army had a rôle in support of B.A.O.R. and a rôle in reinforcement of the regular Army which hon. Members opposite must now wish they had the men to fill. We handed them 115,000 volunteers. What have they now? They have not 50,000. They have not even 40,000. Gut of 54,000 or so they need, on 31st October they had 35,887; and over and above that, 1,000 "ever-readies." As a result, I expect that the

House will shortly be asked by hon. Members opposite to approve legislation for the retention of a further 15,000 National Service men who by this time are getting fairly old and who have been away from all basic military training for a considerable time.
As well as these deficiencies for reinforcement of the Rhine Army, the Government have nothing for home defence. However, this afternoon—it was the first time I had heard them advance this argument—they claimed that they had something for a home defence rôle and that it consisted of regular soldiers, sailors and airmen. May we know a little about this curious concept? If all the regular sailors, soldiers and airmen are not to be committed on the outbreak of hostilities to tasks other than home defence, it seems curious that the Government are maintaining them for a home defence rôle. They must be vastly more expensive to maintain in that rôle than were the volunteers we had. If the rôle exists, and if the Government admit that there is a home defence rôle, it needs a great deal more explanation before we can accept that it is reasonable for them to be maintaining Regular Service men to fill it.
In the statement which they made last week about the last reorganisation of TAVR III, the Government at last admitted that the reserves have a rôle as a framework for a possible expansion. I found it difficult to believe my ears when I heard that admission because I remembered how they laughed to scorn our suggestion in 1965 that such a rôle existed. Now that they have admitted it, we should like to know from the Secretary of State what they think this expansion is for and why they think it necessary now when they did not consider it necessary three or four years ago. We should like answers to those questions.
In so far as the latest announcement follows the advice which we have given the Government to widen the geographical base of TAVR II by spreading the number of drill halls and there fore the recruiting areas, we welcome it. But it is extremely important that if the reserves are to be built up as we wish to see in future, sufficient drill halls should be maintained. We think that it will be necessary to maintain as active units


more than just the cadres which have been proposed by the Government. These units will have to have a base. Therefore it may be important to retain not just the 150 drill halls being talked about but a number of others which are under sentence of disposal. The Government should call a halt to this mad rush in getting rid of drill halls and should ask the Lands Branch of the Defence Department to go a bit slower, which they have not found too difficult to do over the disposal of Government property in the past.
May I sum up our case and restate why we propose to divide the House? The Foreign Secretary is reported in The Times of 16th November as having told N.A.T.O. at the Ministerial Conference about Czechoslovakia that if there were further acts of this sort N.A.T.O. could not remain indifferent or inactive. We should like the Secretary of State's comment on these words from the defence point of view. There is no need to be alarmist or even to go as far as the Foreign Secretary went to be aware that possible developments in Europe seem now to be much less predictable and much more dangerous. One cannot escape the conclusion that the Government have under-estimated not only the likelihood of danger from the direction of Europe but the variety of guises in which that danger could come.
It is against this background that we have no confidence in the competence or will of the Government to provide us with the regular forces and reserve forces which we require. In that conviction, we shall divide the House.

9.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): This has been a wide-ranging debate. Many interesting points have been raised. Many of them were dealt with in the quite brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration.
I was particularly interested in and impressed by the serious and helpful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) concerning the Argylls. I will consider his suggestion very carefully. I have had the oppor-

tunity during the last week or two to meet two battalions, one due for disbandment and one already merged. It is extraordinary the sense in which members of the battalion feel that its traditions can be carried on provided that a merger with a battalion with a similar background can be arranged. I very much hope that the unfortunate necessity, which the previous Conservative Administration encountered on many occasions, to eliminate one battalion from the order of battle, can have some of the pain taken out of it by the sort of suggestion which my hon. Friend made.
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on joining the club of defence spokesmen. It is a club which seems a great deal easier to join in his party than in ours. I hope that he stays a little longer in his job than his predecessors. All of us would agree that we should like to see him for at least three years as defence spokesman of the Opposition.
I welcome very much the tone in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opened the debate, although I do not accept his criticisms of the Government's policy. However, I was particularly glad that he put the Opposition four square behind the N.A.T.O. strategy as it exists, largely as a result of the arguments which have been put forward by myself and other Ministers during the last four years. If we agree on what the strategy should be, we can have a much more meaningful discussion of whether the Government are doing the right thing to fulfil it. That, as I understand it, was what the major argument was about today.
I know that there is still strong feeling on both sides of the House on many aspects of Government policy in detail, but I hope that we never forget that when we debate defence we are dealing not only with life and death matters: we are dealing also with the tides of human history.
In commenting on a Motion which mixes the large and small issues together, I want to start by dealing with the big issues which were raised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. First, I would like to say a word about the implications of the Czechoslovakia crisis. I cannot do better than start by quoting


what I said in the House in July, a passage which was grossly misrepresented and taken out of context by one or two speakers in the debate.
I referred to the fact that hon. Members had been watching with the greatest anxiety in recent weeks the tensions which had arisen in Eastern Europe and I repeated what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had just said in an earlier debate, that we should not want ourselves or any of our allies to be subject to that sort of tension.
It is only the existence of N.A.T.O."—
I said—
which ensures that neither we nor they are so subjected. Indeed, we can comfort our selves that the situation between East and West in Europe today is comparatively stable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1019.]
I pointed very much the contrast between the growing tension inside Eastern Europe and the fact that we had a fairly stable situation between East and West. This indeed proved to be the case even when the tensions inside Eastern Europe exploded into an act of military aggression by the Soviet Union on one of her allies.
The invasion of Czechoslovakia did not pose a direct threat to the West. It was essentially a typical episode in the decay of an empire. What the Russians were doing in Czechoslovakia was suppressing a movement for colonial freedom. There was no more reason to think that because they used force to maintain the imperialist status quo inside Eastern Europe they would use it to attack the West than there was to believe that, because Britain and France used similar measures to maintain what they saw as the imperial status quo in Suez in 1956, that meant that they were contemplating an attack on Albania. It is important to keep this distinction in mind.
Eighty per cent. of the Soviet forces which entered Czechoslovakia in August have now withdrawn. There are not much more than 50,000 Soviet soldiers left in Czechoslovakia. The Russians probably consider from the military point of view that any gross addition in their military capability through the presence of those 50,000 men is more than offset by the assumed unreliability of the 11 Czech divisions which they previously considered as part of the Warsaw Pact.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask—

Mr. Healey: No, I must go on.
Disengagement from empire, as we all know, is always difficult and painful, especially when it is reluctant.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose —

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member spoke at length in the earlier debate. The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) ran slightly into my time. I was asked a large number of questions and I must ask the House to give me an opportunity of deploying my case and answering the questions which were asked me.
Disengagement from empire is always difficult and painful, particularly when it is reluctant. We must, I think, expect a series of conflicts like the one we have just seen in Czechoslovakia, like the one we saw in Hungary and earlier still in East Berlin, until the Russians finally learn, as we have done, that one cannot sit on bayonets. It is possible that some future conflicts inside the Soviet bloc will pose a more direct and urgent threat to military stability between the East and West of Europe than the Czech invasion did. I think that we all feel that the doctrine announced by Mr. Brezhnev was a very dangerous one. There is no doubt that the process of disengagement from empire in Eastern Europe can produce changes for worse as well as for better in the policy and central leader ship of the Soviet Union.
It is worth while hon. Members on both sides of the House remembering that the last time a great empire decayed in Central and Eastern Europe it resulted in the First World War. This is the sort of problem which we are liable to face in the future and N.A.T.O. must, as I said in July, maintain its strength and solidarity so as to remove any possible temptation to test the integrity of the West. We must preserve the immunity which we enjoyed last August.
When I met with my colleagues in Brussels, a few weeks ago, we considered the implications of the Czech affair for our posture and our military position. We recognised that we had received full political warning of Soviet intentions. I referred to the possibility in my speech


in July. We also, of course, had strategic warning of the move of Soviet troops. We, as it were, watched them being deployed around the frontiers of Czechoslovakia.
With all respect to an old friend in another place, we did not feel it necessary at that time to call a N.A.T.O. general alert. We were satisfied to maintain a state of vigilance. But, of course, once the Soviet forces were deployed all around Czechoslovakia, it was possible for them to maintain total tactical surprise and this confirmed the importance which N.A.T.O. has always given to forces on the spot near the Iron Curtain as a deterrent to attack.
The basic result of the Czech affair was not that it led to a big increase in total capability of N.A.T.O. I do not think that any of us felt it was necessary or required. What it did was to stop a big decrease which might have followed if some countries planning to reduce their N.A.T.O. contributions had carried through these planned reductions. In fact, all the members of N.A.T.O. in Brussels offered improvements in their planned contributions for next year, but not very many of them did what we did, and that was to offer an actual improvement on the present contribution this year.
The Government have played a leading rôle in the political discussions which led to these decisions and, during the present year, Britain has made far bigger improvements in her physical contribution to N.A.T.O. than any other member of the Alliance. We were able to do this only because we had decided earlier in the year to end our permanent presence in the Gulf and South-East Asia. I have told the House on several occasions, or my right hon. Friend has, of the precise improvements we have made, but it is worth recalling them when we reflect on the Motion moved by hon. Members opposite.
First of all, we concentrated on improvements entirely in areas SACEUR had already identified as desirable and the allies wanted. Our assigned M-day forces in Germany are up by 3,000 since the end of confrontation because we have up-manned units which were run down by the previous Conservative Govern-

ment and which had to be kept run down by ourselves during the confrontation. As a result, B.A.O.R. as a whole is now 53,000 as against touching on 50,000 men in 1964.
We have withdrawn one of our brigades from B.A.O.R.—one of our B.A.O.R. brigades from Germany—to save foreign exchange, but, even so, the total number of British forces in Germany today is only 1,000 less than it was in 1964. Certainly, I think that not the least successful exercise was the return of Six Brigade to B.A.O.R. in September and October.
We have, in addition—if we are talking of assigned forces—put an additional squadron of Harriers into N.A.T.O.; and this is the only V/STOL aircraft in the world. Several hon. Members have raised this question. As a V/STOL air craft, the Harrier is first-rate and an extremely valued addition to N.A.T.O.'s forces on land in Europe. However, to fly in the VTOL mode—that is, using direct vertical lift from a small ship—its very limited range payload does not make it worth the money. If we could up-rate the Harrier it is possible that the situation might develop in which it might be worth while putting it on ships, but that is not the situation at the moment.
On top of this, there has been a big increase in our forces assigned to N.A.T.O. We have earmarked for assignment on M-day, wherever needed, the Third Division, 16 Parachute Brigade, and the S.A.S. Regiment to support 38 Group. We have also earmarked some badly needed signallers for ACE Mobile Force.
In the Mediterranean we have now agreed to keep a large ship permanently there with two frigates and to add a guided missile destroyer in 1970. We have put in Shackleton aircraft, shortly to be replaced by Nimrods for maritime reconnaissance and, as a result, we will have not only the power to survey what is happening in the Mediterranean area but also a very powerful amphibious force there with an embarked commando. However, the naval force will rely, like the Soviet and American forces in the Mediterranean, on afloat support. We think that this is a very much wiser policy than to rebuild the facilities in Malta.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the two American aircraft carriers and 50 other ships that are there?

Mr. Healey: On the reserves, which have figured largely in hon. Members' speeches;, we now have plans to increase the total number of full-time regular forces available to N.A.T.O., which would mean as many as 73,000 in case of war, by 65,000 reserves in part units, mainly logistic, from TAVR 2, and, in part, individuals to bring the units up from peace to war establishment.
As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, these reserves are infinitely better trained and equipped than was the case in 1964. There has been a big increase in the number of days' training given to the reserves in the United Kingdom. We now do four times as much training abroad with our reserves than we did in 1964, and their equipment is infinitely better.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate will know that the armoured recce regiments, which he made available in the reserves, were equipped with Landrovers. We have now equipped our armoured reconnaissance units with Ferrets and Saladins like the equivalent reconnaissance units of the regular Army side by side with which they will serve.
It should be remembered that N.A.T.O. has no interest in reserves which are with out training and equipment, particularly on the day on which war breaks out. There will not be time in another war to train and equip forces once it has started. N.A.T.O. also has no interest in home defence as hon. Gentlemen opposite define it. If home defence were ever needed in the United Kingdom we would already have gone nuclear. We would be faced with an entirely new dimension of problem. [Interruption.] This is the assumption on which the whole of N.A.T.O. bases its plans.
The fact is that only two European countries maintain a voluntary reserve for home defence, and they are Norway and Denmark. [Interruption.] I am talking about N.A.T.O. countries. Other countries maintain a gendarmerie, either for protecting their frontiers in case of war or for peace-time tasks in their countries, such as we have seen in action in some countries in recent months. How ever, a home defence force of the type

mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite does not figure in the inventory of any N.A.T.O. country except Norway and Denmark.

Mr. Ramsden: By "home defence" we mean many other things. We mean, for example, N.A.T.O.'s vital areas and installations. Has N.A.T.O. no interest in that aspect?

Mr. Healey: We have made provision in other ways for the protection of vital points, but that is another question.
In addition to all these improvements in our physical contribution to N.A.T.O, we did something which has not been mentioned in this debate: we took the lead towards establishing a European identity inside N.A.T.O., an identity among the European Allies which I have long believed to be necessary. We are particularly concerned in this new European grouping to help the new American Administration to resist the pressures which may be brought to bear on them for a dangerous reduction in the American commitment to N.A.T.O.
We also believe that the European members of the alliance should be enabled to play a constructive rôle as a group in any talks between America and Russia about the limitation of offensive and defensive nuclear weapons, because Europe is particularly concerned with anything that may happen to the 7,000 tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Western Europe and the 700 Soviet medium-range missiles targeted against Western Europe.
This is the British reaction to the crisis mentioned in the Opposition Motion. It is universally praised by our Allies and it has been attacked only by the Soviet Union. Against this background, the Opposition Motion is not just bizarre; it is a Motion of stupefying ineptitude, because, after three major additions to our contribution to N.A.T.O., after leading the European N.A.T.O. reaction to Czechoslovakia, after being singled out by Russia for criticism, we find the Opposition joining not our Allies in praising us, but the Soviet Union in attacking us.
They are attacking us for not doing more, but in the same breath as they attack us for not doing more they pledge themselves to destroy the basis on which our increases have been offered. We have


been able to make these increases be cause we are leaving our positions east of Suez. The Opposition say that they will stay indefinitely in the Far East and the Gulf. They will maintain all existing commitments. Those hon. Members opposite who served in the Ministry of Defence know that that policy means going back to units in B.A.O.R. being permanently undermanned and over stretched. A return to the old reserve system, which seems to be proposed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, means smaller reserves less well trained and less well equipped.
Some hon. Members opposite argue that this can be done within existing costs and, incidentally, the other day The Times argued this. They said that we ought to be prepared to cut the regular forces available on M-day to deal with a threat which is predictable so as to provide defence against an undefined and unpredictable threat to home defence in the United Kingdom. I do not think that any of our allies would welcome this and certainly to take such a decision would be profoundly dispiriting to all who serve in our regular forces.
However, I will pay this tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham—he recognised that his policy would cost us more and he said that he was prepared to pay it. One thing he did not tell us was how much more it would cost. I do not blame him, because I know that he is new to this business, but I can help him, using not my figures, but the figures I found in my Ministry as a prediction of the cost of Conservative policy as supported by right hon. Gentle men opposite and introduced by them when in office in 1964, figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is free to inspect in my Ministry any time he wishes to do so.
The Opposition are pledged in the Motion to stop the rundown of our Forces, to stop the withdrawal from east of Suez, to build up in Malta, to build up in the South Atlantic, to continue the carrier force, to restore the old Territorial Army, to stop the cuts in the Gurkhas and to stop the cuts in the Argylls. We know the cost of this, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite worked it out. The cost is £3,000 million extra over the next five years. Any Privy Councillor on the

benches opposite is free to inspect the figures drawn up when right hon. Gentle men opposite were in power. That is £600 million a year on average.
I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. He was prepared to pay this money, but are his right hon. Friends? They pledged themselves at the same time to cut Government expenditure, to cut taxes and to increase help to the local authorities. Where is all the money coming from? Well, we have had it suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that they would cut the housing subsidy; that they would increase food prices by cutting farm subsidies; and that they would cut factory aid. But even if they did all this it would not come near to paying the cost even of the increases in defence expenditure for which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen Opposite will soon troop into the Division Lobbies tonight.
The Opposition are really not serious about what they say. In part, they are opposing for the sake of opposing, and in part, as usual, they are prepared to exploit any Government measure which is unpopular with any group of voters by promising to reverse it if and when they ever get back into power. I can tell them that in defence their attitude is a seedy and transparent swindle which takes in nobody. It does not take in the Australians outside Britain, and it does not take in the Territorial Army Council inside Britain.
The leader of the Opposition was asked yesterday, on the B.B.C.: how is it that when the Government have deliberately incurred unpopularity for the sake of doing what is needed to save the nation, the loss of the popularity of the Government is not paralleled by a positive in crease in the popularity of the Opposition? The answer to that question is not the personality of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath). The answer is the dishonesty of the whole of the Opposition Front Bench, which is prepared to sacrifice honesty for the sake of immediate party political gain. It is prepared to offer anything, and is not prepared to pay for any promise it makes.
The party opposite was characterised by cowardice when in office, and is being characterised by hypocrisy in opposition. The Opposition Motion put forward for the approval of the House now is an


amalgam of humbug and hypocrisy, and I ask the House to reject it with the contempt it deserves.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Now that the Secretary of State has got that tirade off his mind, will he say one word about recruiting, with which the whole debate is concerned?

Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend dealt in detail with recruiting earlier in the debate. Officer recruitment in all three Services is adequate. Other rank recruitment is adequate in the Royal Air Force. We have serious problems

amongst other ranks in the Navy and in the Army. I hope that the the party opposite will join us in repairing this damage and not, as always, by crying "stinking fish", foul their own and the nation's nest.

Question put,

That this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have announced no plans to arrest the run-down of Her Majesty's forces or of the Reserves, particularly in view of the changed situation in Europe and of the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation communiqué in Brussels.

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 317.

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Drayson, G. B.
Jopling, Michael


Allason, James (Hemal Hempstead)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Astor, John
Eden, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, Marcus


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Batsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles'
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Foster, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. A Fhm)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp;. Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd,Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)


Biggs-Davison,John
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Black, Sir Cyril
Glover, Sir Douglas
Longden, Gilbert


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Sir Richard
Loveys, W. H.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gower, Raymond
Macleod, Rt. Hn, lain


Braine, Bernard
Grant, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson. Patrick


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin


Bryan, Paul
Garden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.


Buchanan-Smith,Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maude, Angus


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman


Channon, H, P. G.
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hay, John
Monro, Heotor


Clark, Henry
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus


Cooke, Robert
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cordle, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Corfield, F. V.
Hilley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Costain, A. P.
Hill, J. E. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Neave, Airey


Crouch, David
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hornby, Richard
Nott, John


Currie, G. B, H.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dance, James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Doughty, Charles
Jones, Artthur (Northants, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec






Peel, John
Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan


Percival, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James
Waddington, David


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sharples, Richard
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Pink, R. Bonner
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pounder, Rafton
Silvester, Frederick
Walters, Dennis


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Webster, David


Prior, J. M. L.
Speed, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pym, Francis
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stodart, Anthony
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Woodnutt, Mark


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Ridsdale, Julian
Teeling, Sir William
Wright, Esmond


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Temple, John M.
Wylie, N. R.


Robson Brown, Sir William
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Younger, Hn. George


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Royle, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Russell, Sir Ronald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hannan, William


Albu, Austen
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harper, Joseph


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Haseldine, Norman


Allen, Scholefield
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hattersley, Roy


Anderson, Donald
Delargy, Hugh
Hazell, Bert


Archer, Peter
Dell, Edmund
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dewar, Donald
Henig, Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dickens, James
Hilton, W. S.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dobson, Ray
Hobden, Dennis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Hooley, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Driberg, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn


Barnett, Joel
Dunn, James A.
Horner, John


Baxter, William
Dunnett, Jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Beaney, Alan
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bence, Cyril
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Howie, W.


Binns, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Huckfield, Leslie


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
English, Michael
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Booth, Albert
Ennals, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boston, Terence
Ensor, David
Hunter, Adam


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hynd, John


Boyden, James
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, E.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Finch, Harold
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brooks, Edwin
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir Eric (Islington,E.)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ford, Ben
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerry
Kelley, Richard


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kenyon, Clifford


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Gardner, Tony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Chapman, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Coe, Denis
Ginsburg, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Coleman, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Conlan, Bernard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lee, John (Reading)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cronin, John
Gregory, Arnold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lipton, Marcus


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lomas, Kenneth


Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Loughlin, Charles


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hamling, William
Lubbock, Eric


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)







Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Small, William


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Snow, Julian


McBride, Neil
Padley, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


McCann, John
Paget, R. T.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


MacColl, James
Palmer, Arthur
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


McGuire, Michael
Pardoe, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Park, Trevor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swingler, Stephen


Mackie, John
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Mackintosh, John P.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Taverne, Dick


Maclennan, Robert
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


McMillan, Tim (Glasgow, C.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thornton, Ernest


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Tomney, Frank


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Urwin, T. W.


Manuel, Archie
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Varley, Eric G.


Mapp, Charles
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Marks, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Marquand, David
Probert, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wallace, George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Randall, Harry
Watkins, David (Consett)


Maxwell, Robert
Rankin, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rees, Merlyn
Weitzman, David


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Mendelson, John
Richard, Ivor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitaker, Ben


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Whitlock, William


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilkins, W. A.


Molloy, William
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Moonman, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roebuck, Roy
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Moyle, Roland
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ryan, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Murray, Albert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Newens, Stan
Sheldon, Robert
Winnick, David


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c't'le-u-Tyne)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. René e (W'hampton,N.E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Oram, Albert E.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Orbach, Maurice
Silverman, Julius
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Stanley
Skeffington, Arthur
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Oswald, Thomas
Slater, Joseph
Mr. Alan Fitch.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put: —

That the Proceedings on the Electricity (Scotland) Bill and the Divorce Reform Bill

may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 218.

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James
Dalyell, Tam


Albu, Austen
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Anderson, Donald
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Archer, Peter
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Dr Ernest (Stretford)


Ashley, Jack
Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Delargy, Hugh


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buchan, Norman
Dell, Edmund


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dickens, James


Barnett, Joel
Cant, R. B.
Dobson, Ray


Baxter, William
Carmichael, Neil
Doig, Peter


Beaney, Alan
Carter-Jones, Lews
Driberg, Tom


Bennett, James, (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Chapman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack


Bessell, Peter
Coe, Denis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bishop, E. S.
Conlan, Bernard
Eadie, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edelman, Maurice


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crawshaw, Richard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Booth, Albert
Cronin, John
Ellis, John


Boston, Terence
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
English, Michael




Ennals, David
Lee, John (Reading)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Ensor, David
Lestor, Miss Joan
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rankin, John


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rees, Merlyn


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fletcher,Rt.Hn,Sir Eric (Islington,E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roebuck, Roy


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John
Rowlands, E.


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Sheldon, Robert


Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Short, Mrs. René e (W'hampton,N.E.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Gardner, Tony
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Garrett, W. E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, Arthur


Gordon walker, Rt. Hn. P.C.
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Joseph


Grav. Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles
Small, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marks, Kenneth
Snow, Julian


Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maxwell, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamling, William
Mendelson, John
Swingler, Stephen


Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce
Taverne, Dick


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thornton, Ernest


Haseldine, Norman
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Tinn, James


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy William
Tuck, Raphael


Hattersley, Roy
Moonman, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Varley, Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Henig, Stanley
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wallace, George


Hobden, Dennis
Murray, Albert
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stan
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hooson, Emlyn
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Horner, John
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oram, Albert E.
Whitaker, Ben


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Paget, R. T.



Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hynd, John
Pardoe, John
Williams, W.T.(Warrington)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Winnick, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Judd, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)



Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Leadbitter, Ted
price William (Rugby) 
Mr. Charles R. Morris.


Lee, Rt. Hn Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Braine, Bernard


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Alldritt, Walter
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Astor, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Buck, Antony (Colchester)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullus, Sir Eric


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Batsford, Brian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Body, Richard
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Bence, Cyril
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carlisle, Mark


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cary, Sir Robert







Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Corfield, F. V.
Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Costain, A. p.
Hornby, Richard
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John
Peel, John


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dance, James
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Francis


Dean, Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dunn, James A.
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ryan, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'te-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Sharples, Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McNair-Wilson. Patrick
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Teeling, Sir William


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tilney, John


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus
Waddington, David


Grant, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grant-Ferris, B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wright, Esmond


Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, N. R.


Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Younger, Hn. George


Hay, John
Neave, Airey



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. John Wells and


Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) , considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We now have an opportunity for the Minister of State to reply to some of the points raised in Committee of which he needed notice and which he undertook to deal with on Third Reading.
The Bill raises in two stages the borrowing limits of the Scottish electricity boards because the present limits are expected to be reached in future years. The main point is that, before any major investment projects are embarked on in Scotland, the most up-to-date assessments must be made of fuel and power developments. Recent experience has shown that technological improvements, discovery of new sources of power and other changes have caused the situation to be altered from year to year, even from month to month.
The Bill permits new limits and provides more latitude for the Secretary of State and the electricity boards, but what will matter in the event will be the decisions taken in future on investment and expenditure. We hope that these decisions on the generation and transmission of electricity in Scotland will be taken by the Government of the day—whether the present Government or, more likely, a future Conservative Government—with all the latest technological developments and all the other possible information which can affect those decisions in mind.

10.28 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: Although the points raised during earlier stages were fully explored, there are just two other questions I should like to put which are relevant and which have arisen partly since our earlier deliberations.
First, now that the great majority of the people of Scotland are bent on blowing the fuse in British Standard Time, it

is relevant to ask what effect B.S.T. is having upon costings of the electricity boards in terms of the possibility of greater overtime payments to their staffs. Has any account been taken of this in the amounts that we are discussing?
Secondly, is the Minister satisfied that the tools which the men have to look after electricity generation and supply in Scotland are of sufficiently high standard? Have they got the tools for the job? I am reminded of this aspect from time to time when breakdowns occur. I was reminded of it when I had to have Sunday morning breakfast by candlelight. We tend to think what a bore it is when the lights go out, but usually little thought is given to the men who have to go out at unearthly hours to repair breakdowns, often in freezing fog and snow and to almost inaccessible hillsides.
I am sure that the whole House will join in tribute to the marvellous work that these men do. We recall their work during the January hurricanes and will wish them a happy and fuse-free Christmas.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I do not wish to detain the House long in discussion on the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill is of general concern to the country. I know that it has been well talked over in the Scottish Grand Committee, of which English Members, in the nature of things, cannot be members. Yet the taxation which has to be raised to make loans to the boards is presumably raised from the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, I make no apologies, as an English Member who takes an interest in electricity supply, for saying something about the Bill. I will be as short as I can, but there are a number of things which should be said about the Bill.
I was not very enthusiastic when, in 1953, it was decided to split the South of Scotland electricity organisation away from the rest of the country. In fact, I opposed it at the time. But I am prepared to concede that the South of Scotland Electricity Board is an efficient and effective organisation, as is the North of Scotland Electricity Board which came into existence as a result of an earlier Act. Both boards have done excellent work. They are useful to those of us


interested in electricity supply organisations because they give a useful comparison between the operation of two all-purpose electricity boards and the system which we have south of the Border where generation is separated and distinct from distribution.
It is worth making the point that the Scottish electricity boards are not in fact, as viable technically as they might seem to be on the face of it, since they are bound to lean for their reserve capacity upon the Central Electricity Generating Board. It is stated now that the Scottish electricity boards propose to obtain for themselves a margin of reserve generating capacity. Already, south of the Border there is a reserve capacity of about 17 to 18 per cent. Since the two systems are entirely interconnected, is this being worked out on a Scottish basis alone, or, as I think it should be, on the general United Kingdom basis? That is an important point in view of the vast sums of money which are bound to be invested in electricity supply generation.
Another matter I should like to put shortly concerns the fuel chosen when new generating stations are constructed. The South of Scotland Board, which in these matters works jointly with the North of Scotland Board—there is now a common generation committee—is making a very marked investment in coal fired power stations at Cockenzie and Longannet. They propose to build a second, much larger, nuclear power station at Hunterston. All this work is in hand. Apparently after that is completed, it is intended—and this is an excellent decision—to move on to a small scheme for pump storage.
But a surprising decision has been taken additionally, although, as yet, it has not been approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that a large oil-fired power station should be constructed at Inverkip. Consent, as I say, has yet to be obtained. This last decision has come as a surprise to some of us who serve on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I have the honour to be chairman. When Mr. Allen the chairman of the South of Scotland Board, gave evidence to the Select Committee, he spoke a great deal about coal-fired power stations and about nuclear powered stations, but said hardly anything about

the possibility of new oil-fired generation in Scotland. I do not wish to detain the House unduly, or I would give a relevant quotation from the written evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Allen's board.
It is 18 months since the South of Scotland Board gave evidence to the Select Committee when we were investigating the nuclear energy programme, and I can have no complaint if since then the Board has thought again about it, but it reinforces, I think, the Select Committee's argument that before the Government give blanket approval to the investment of such large sums, when a choice has to be made between firing systems, there should be check and double check to make quite certain that the costs have been accurately calculated. In the Select Committee's Report we proposed that there should be an independent assessment of fuel costs, of course.
I have read what the Minister of State told the Grand Committee, when he explained that all the information on relative costs was fed into a computer and that apparently the computer produced the right answer. But that is a remarkable simplification. If life were as simple as that, there would be no need to have Ministers, would there? We could install a bank of computers and get the right answer everytime. In all these matters the fact is that the answer we get from the computer depends almost entirely on the assumptions which we make about the information fed into the computer. Computers and other calculation devices are simply tools, and we should not think more than that of them.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to think again about the answer given me on 4th December that the Government were satisfied that in these matters accurate calculations were being made and that there was no case for independent fuel assessment. If he and his right hon. Friend think about it again, they should read the correspondence which has passed between the Minister of Power, who operates South of the Border, and the Select Committee on Science and Technology, in which he will find a curiously ambiguous reference to an Answer given in the House on 15th October by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
This reply is referred to in the correspondence and the Select Committee commented on it, because, in view of the stubborn refusal, until now, of the Minister of Power and, presumably working in conjunction with him, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to have independent fuel cost assessment, the Prime Minister's reply was most interesting. The Prime Minister said that previous assessments for relative costs of conventional and nuclear generation were again being reviewed.
This requires some interpretation—a point made by the Select Committee. If we are now thinking again, beyond the assumptions of the last White Paper on Fuel Policy, it is an opportunity to have an independent assessment. That is the argument which I want the Minister to consider when his Department go further into the matter.
Occupants of the office of Minister of Power tend to change rather quickly, but the Minister of Power has stated that he is carrying out, as his predecessors proposed, a review of electricity supply structure in England and Wales. He has an expert Committee of advisers looking at the whole organisation of electricity supply south of the Border. Is Scotland involved in this at all? It would be interesting to find out. If the Government are going to all the trouble to review and, possibly, reorganise electricity supply, it seems curious to do it simply south of the Border. The Government should do their electrical thinking in United Kingdom terms if it is to be done at all.
The last time that Scottish electricity organisation was looked at was in 1962 or 1963, when the Mackenzie Committee reported. That was a comprehensive review of the whole organisation and system of generation and distribution of electricity in Scotland. The Mackenzie Committee made a number of recommendations, very few of which were implemented. That was when the Conservatives were in power. They appointed the Mackenzie Committee, but did little about its recommendations when they were submitted. Apart from the establishment of the co-ordinating arrangement between the South of Scotland Board and the North of Scotland Board, the recom-

mendations of the Mackenzie Committee were largely ignored.
The most interesting recommendation of that Committee was that there should be one board for the whole of Scotland. It seems surprising that, at a time when electricity supply organisation is under review in England and Wales, nothing is being said these days, apparently, about the previous proposal to have one Scottish electricity board. I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend the Minister of State will do his best to answer these points, which should be of considerable interest to the whole of the House.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If I may intervene briefly, I would like to ask three questions on which, I hope, the Minister of State will be able to give advice. We greatly appreciate the contributions of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) in electricity affairs, because he has a real interest in electricity throughout the country and he has detailed knowledge of it.
My first question relates to a point which has been mentioned time after time by the South of Scotland Electricity Board in its annual reports. When we are agreeing to a substantial additional sum of capital investment for the board, we are entitled to have at least guidelines on a question which has caused it so much concern. I refer to the cost of coal to the board.
The board stated in its annual report for the current year that during the year it had continued to draw attention to the high price of coal for electricity generation in Scotland compared with the price paid for electricity generation in England and Wales. The board is, of course, the largest customer of the Coal Board in Scotland. When we are considering additional sums for capital investment, we are entitled to have an indication from the Government of their policy concerning these supplies to the board, particularly in connection with the capital expenditure which is authorised in the Bill.
My second question, which I have raised in the House from time to time, is that of fuel price differentials in Scotland. I have pointed out to the Minister of


Power that in Scotland we pay considerably more for gas and coal for electricity, but despite the high price of coal, through the efficiency of the boards, we ensure that the domestic consumer in Scotland gets a fair deal and the price is extremely reasonable compared with other parts of the country. Industrialists, how ever, pay about 1s. in the £ more than the average in England and Wales.
Can the Minister say whether part of the capital expenditure covered in the Bill will contribute to a reduction of the differential which exists between domestic and industrial consumers in Scotland? It would appear that the differential between the two classes of consumer is greater in Scotland. Will the sums provided in the Bill be used in some way to reduce the differential which appears to exist between domestic and industrial consumers compared with other parts of the country?
My third question relates to the efficiency of accounting and the collection of money. The traditional method of collecting revenue for electricity is by using meters which indicate the quantity of current consumed and issuing accounts. There has been a tradition in Scotland, for longer than in other parts of the country, of having a substantial number of prepayment meters. Because of the problem, which is referred to by the consultative committee, of burglaries from meters the board has had a policy of gradually phasing out pre-payment meters. On the other hand, when we are considering considerable capital investment I wonder whether the Minister can say whether, under the Bill, it would be the policy to spend some of these capital sums to help old people and widows living alone, who worry about meeting substantial electricity bills and would greatly appreciate having pre-payment meters.
I wonder whether the installation of a substantial number of pre-payment meters is being considered. In some areas, particularly in Glasgow, the board has been extremely courteous, helpful and sympathetic in admitting pre-payment meters in cases of individual hardship. Would the Minister tell us whether it will be the policy of the South Board and the North Board to permit the continuation, and,

if need be, the installation, of pre payment meters in individual cases of hardship?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Mr. Dempsey.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Will the discussion on the Prayer which is to follow this debate on Third Reading of this Bill have to finish at 11.30?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. Any time taken on Third Reading of the Bill must come out of the time which could other wise have been spent on the Prayer. The Chair is required to put the Question on the Prayer forthwith at 11.30, or adjourn the debate on the Prayer.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Yes. I am wondering whether there is any way of letting our colleagues know that that must happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member's point of order will have achieved that purpose.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am sorry to burden the House at this time, but the point I am about to make I was precluded from making in the Scottish Committee on the Bill. I think that that was due to some collusion by the interests concerned, but it leaves me with no alternative but to make the point now.
It is this. To what extent will the sums to be raised because of the Bill be used or deployed to modernise the service department of the electricity authority in Scotland? This is a question which should be raised in the House, late though the hour is, because in my part of Scotland we have the electricity authority so under-modernised that it is compelled to farm out to private enterprise many aspects of its work. This seems to me a very unreasonable state of affairs.
A few years ago we had a strike of the workers in different parts of Lanarkshire because 200 men were paid off because there was no work for them, and there was no work for them because it had been farmed out to private enterprise, and it was farmed out to private enterprise be cause it had up to date, modern equipment to do it, and the public electricity


authority had not. At the moment on a housing estate in my own constituency private enterprise is cabling the electricity service, not the public authority. I under stand from a trade union official that matters have worsened, and that electricity wires—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going wide of debate on Third Reading, which should be confined to what is in the Bill. He is going into a great deal of detail which may have been appropriate at an earlier stage of the Bill, but is not appropriate on Third Reading.

Mr. Dempsey: I understand that by the Bill we are enabling the electricity authorities to raise certain sums of money. I would have thought it in order to talk about how the money would be spent.
In calling for the prudent spending of public money, I thought it right to illustrate a problem which is facing Scotland. Any electricity authority which proposes to borrow the large sum with which we are concerned tonight should be able to equip its departments so that they can provide a proper service to the public. I am not criticising private firms for being equipped to offer a good service. I merely want an assurance that a reasonable sum from the amount which is to be borrowed will be used to obtain the most modern equipment so that the electricity authorities serving Lanarkshire and other parts of Scotland can do the job for which they were established.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Eadie.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. May I point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the last day to debate a Prayer, that the Children (Performances) Regulations are delegated legislation, that this is the only occasion on which the House has had an opportunity of discussing this matter and that, when speaking, hon. Members should recognise that this issue has never been discussed in the House?

Sir David Renton: Further to that point of order. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) could enlighten the House about whether attempts were made

to get a Prayer put down at an earlier date than this, which is the last possible occasion.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Indeed they were. The first date when a Prayer on this matter was tabled was 12th November.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not points of order. However, I hope that hon. Members have noted what has been said. Mr. Eadie.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I wish to be brief, so brief that I could have completed my remarks in the time it has taken to deal with those points of order.
I am prompted to intervene following the Minister's remarks in Committee about another power station for Scotland. The name of Inverkip has been mentioned. In Committee, I asked my hon. Friend if he could make a statement about the possible siting of the station and how it would be fired. I understand that a final decision about whether the power station will be oil or coal fired has not been taken, but that coal is still receiving consideration. Will the Minister now make the position clear?

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I, too, wish to be brief and will confine myself to asking the Minister two questions.
First, to what extent will the extended borrowing powers under the Bill be used to advance the connecting-up programme throughout the Highlands and Islands? The Government have made great progress in this matter. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has a fine record of bringing light and power to the most remote parts of the Highlands, but there are still places waiting to be connected. The North of Scotland is interested to know whether the connecting-up programme will be advanced by the Bill.
Secondly, will the arrangements which the board has made with British Aluminium be a model for further developments of power-intensive industries in the Highlands and Islands? As is known, special arrangements have been agreed with British Aluminium for the supply of power and the initial statement of the Prime Minister suggested that new industries of an import-saving variety might


be able to enjoy similar terms. It must be remembered that the powers of the Board to assist incoming industry are somewhat limited; and the Bill may greatly extend the powers.
The scope of the grant and loan schemes of the Highlands and Islands Development Board is somewhat limited and I hope that the Bill will have considerable value in attracting new power-intensive industries.

10.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): The tariff to which my hon. Friend has referred is of such a nature as to be attractive to the industry. While I cannot reveal all the facts about it, because of its confidential character, I confirm that it is advantageous to the industry, while, at the same time, it will not be a burden on any individual consumer. Perhaps that will meet the point of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathgart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who was arguing about the individual industrial consumer. The figures which he quoted were average figures. I have had letters pointing out that some are above the average, but others are lower than average. I think that the kind of industries which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had in mind will come into the latter category. I am sure that we all hope that the smelter will be a considerable success and will attract other power-intensive industries to the Highlands.
The tariffs are a matter for the Board to decide and are not for the Secretary of State, but I have no doubt that the Board will take account of the views of the hon. Member for Cathcart and other hon. Members when next reviewing the tariff structure. I think that the Board would be right to seek to please the consumers by phasing out the prepayment meter system, while at the same time accepting that there are special needs which should be met. This is a matter which should be left to the Board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) asked about the Board's investment programmes. These are settled each year and the spending priorities are set having regard to national economic factors. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Cen-

tral (Mr. Palmer) was a little unfair when he suggested that in Committee I argued that a computer did all the work for us. I was trying to explain how we sought to arrive at these decisions stage by stage. I hope that my remarks did not lead hon. Members to believe that once we had reached the stage of the computer, that would be the end of that and the decision would be made for us. There are special factors, especially social factors, to be taken into account, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will endorse my view that these are factors which should be taken into account by Ministers, but which cannot be assessed by computers. That is one reason why an independent commission might not be the best way to make these decisions. Such a commission might well reach a good arithmetical decision, but I doubt whether it could evaluate all the social considerations which are behind many decisions which are taken, and which have been taken, about thermal economics.
The hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned the high price of coal in Scotland and reflected on the fact that the price of electricity to the domestic consumer was low when compared with that in other parts of the United Kingdom. This is an example of the difficulties which we have in Scotland and of our efforts to resolve them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central asked about the margin of capacity for planning purposes. I con firm that the margin of capacity of the Central Electricity Generating Board is 17 per cent. In Scotland, we have been working to a minimum of 14 per cent. but, due to the larger sized generaing sets now being installed, this means in practice a margin of between 14 and 20 per cent. We are now actively considering the margins to be adopted for forward planning purposes.
I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said about In-verkip. We have not made any final decision. The whole purpose of the Bill is to retain flexibility, voting the money without being specific about the kind of fuel, or where the new power stations of the future will be built. We work closely, of course, with the Minister of Power. While we in Scotland have our


own views about things, we naturally take into account his thinking and try to arrive at an essentially Government decision.
I confirm that we are making strenuous efforts, with the Hydro Board, to improve the flood warning systems. The Board has shown itself ready to give all the assistance it can. The increases in the size of natural lochs brought about by its activities and the creation of artificial lochs by damaging have held water back in reservoirs and have contributed to the delay in the rise in floods. The level of the peak discharge from these installations has of course been controlled and has helped to reduce the danger and intensity of flood damage. At no time should the peak flow downstream, including the run off from the catchments below the dam exceed the peak flow which would have occurred at that time had the dam not been built. By anticipating flood conditions and releasing water from the reservoirs in advance, it may also be possible for the Board to create additional water storage capacity and so reduce the size of the peak ffow in the river downstream.
In the floods of December, 1966, the presence of the Board's installations and the way they were operated helped to reduce the bad effects of floods. This is an important part of the Board's function, and one that it takes very seriously.
Within the context of the Bill, we hope that the Board will continue its efforts in this regard and over the other matters which have been raised.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I thought that the Minister of State was going to say something about the increase in the electricity required because of the aluminium smelter, because one publication said that the output would be increased, I think, 100 times. That must have been a mis take.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member is right. Having looked into the matter, I find that the mistake was caused by misinformation on the part of the company concerned. The figure should have been three times, and not 30 times. We shall see that the appropriate correction is made. The points about the coal capacity and British Standard Time have all been taken into account.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Ordered,

That the Select Committee have power to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Dr. Miller.]

Orders of the Day — ENTERTAINMENTS (CHILD PERFORMERS)

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Children (Performances) Regulations 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1728), dated 30th October, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be annulled.
We had hoped to have about 90 minutes to deal with this fairly complex Motion, but we are reduced to less than 30, so I shall try to deploy an argument which needs 20 minutes in about half that time, so as to allow other hon. Members to speak and to give the Under-Secretary time to reply.
These Regulations should be annulled, first, because they are bad Regulations, stemming from a bad Act, and, second, because they are unenforceable at the point at which they most need to be enforced. They are bad because they permit the wholesale and virtually unrestricted employment of children in entertainment. Much of this employment is at present illegal. In the opinion of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Trades Union Congress, the entertainment unions and the Education Welfare Officers National Association, the people whose duty it is to enforce the law—the bodies closest to the work that the children are required to perform—the Regulations are undesirable and unworkable. These are the organisations which are in a position to know what goes on, and what will continue to go on if the Regulations come into effect in their present form.
In those areas where they can be enforced, the Regulations permit what ought not to be permitted. For example, Part II drastically changes the law by permitting the employment of children of any age. The present situation is that the employment of all children under the age of 12 is illegal. The Trades Union Congress has a great deal to say about this position. In the circumstances, I will confine myself to a single quotation. It states:
The General Council has made detailed criticisms with the general import that the proposed restrictions should be narrowed in the interests of the children concerned, and that certain forms of child employment in the

entertainment industry, for example, troupe work and night work, should be prohibited.
Instead of meeting the points made by the T.U.C., these Regulations in many places consist of no more than valueless generalisations.
At the present time, children of school age or under school age may not be employed at all, but by Part IV children of this tender age may be employed until 10 o'clock at night.
Part V enables a child of two to work a five day week. Admittedly, the time of attendance on each day is limited to five hours, but it is utterly monstrous that Regulations made by this House should permit the employment of a child of two at all, let alone with the possibility of a five day week. The present law is that such a child may not legally work at all: under the Regulations, a child of any age, may be required to do night work, even after midnight, in spite of T.U.C. objections.
Part VI, for reasons which I shall give in a moment, is valueless.
If the Regulations go through in their present form, no one making television advertising commercials need ever apply for a licence, because there is provision in the Act, which is repeated in the Regulations, that for a period of eight days in every year a child may be employed without application being made for a licence. In those circumstances, since no individual child is ever employed continuously making television commercials, the provison gives virtually a free hand to remove television commercials altogether from the provisions of the Act.
I will quote from just one letter which I have received from a television technician. This is an example of what goes on all over London. These "telly" commercials are not made in large film studios but in empty theatres, flats and houses all over London. Keeping control of them is virtually impossible with out a strict licensing system. This man writes:
A score of children"—
and this is typical of a number of in stances:
were used as audience, eight children were used to mime to the tape of a commercial jingle, and I would judge that three of the eight were five or under. The smallest child was no more than three years of age.


Although at first the novelty of the situation was enjoyed, towards the end of the day the younger children appeared to be tired and spent.
I will not continue further, except to say what happened at the end of that whole day session. Incidentally, the public do not realise that what may be seen on the screen for a few seconds, often needs a whole day session. The letter goes on to speak of
A line up of the children singing and miming to the playback.
and ends by saying that at the end of it the smallest child started to weep. He lay down on the stage and could not move. Therefore, the suggestion that there is no cruelty involved, and that the children always enjoy this work is not confirmed by the experience of those who are closest to it. If these Regulations come into effect, this kind of thing will not only continue but the House will have taken a decision legally to permit it to go on. If no licence is needed, these Regulations, although they purport to be effective, can never be enforced, nor will anyone know what is taking place. Of a total of about 5,000 commercial programmes made every year, about 40 per cent. employ children. If it seems more than this, this is because films with children are used frequently. Between 1,000 and 2,000 children a year work in this field—roughly as many, I suppose, as used to climb London's chimneys. These Regulations provide the first legal reversion to mass employment of children of any age since the days of Lord Shaftesbury.
Why has this been allowed to happen? My final words are intended to explain how the situation has occurred. I think it has occurred by a series of accidents. It was certainly not the intention of the Bateson Committee which sat in 1950, from whose recommendations the legislation and these Regulations stem. The Bateson Committee would be horrified. When the Committee sat, television commercials did not exist and the Committee certainly could not have foreseen the Regulations which have stemmed from its recommendations which were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances at that time.
In 1962 when the Act from which these Regulations sprung was going through

Parliament, Lord Stonham moved an Amendment prohibiting the employment of children in television for advertising purposes. He was given assurances on that point—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I can quote if necessary. Lord Stonham was given assurances and he withdrew the Amendment in view of those assurances.
The assurances proved in the end to be valueless. It was not anybody's iniquity or fault, but a mistake was made in the redrafting which confused the situation still further, so much so that for five years this Act has lain on the Statute Book unenforced because the Regulations to bring it into effect were so complicated that the draftsmen were unenthusiastic. Five years later we are presented with rushed-through Regulations which at this time of the night we cannot examine fully, and we are asked to legalise something which ought not to be legalised.
I have no time to deploy the remainder of my argument, or others who wish to speak may not be able to do so. I hope I have said enough to show that this House ought to say," We will not permit this to happen." As Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, we have a duty to the people, and especially to children who are unable to speak for themselves here. It is our duty to speak for them. We have a responsibility in this matter which we must exercise.
I therefore urge this House to say to the Government," You are doing something wrong here. Take these Regulations back and produce a new Act which will provide reasonable conditions so that an application has to be made in every case when it is desired to employ a child." [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary shakes his head and says something about Parliamentary time. So these children are to be sacrificed because Parliamentary time will not permit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the parent Act.

Mr. Jenkins: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to explain in my final words that the Regulations as they are would stem from the Act. I am not concerned to allocate responsibility. The Regulations stem from the Act; the Regulations are bad, and I hope the House will throw them out.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: In view of the shortness of time at our disposal, I intend to make one short point. If the hon. Member for Putney [Mr. Hugh Jenkins) cares to divide the House, I shall certainly go through the Division Lobby with him.
There has been no shortage of time for debating this matter. This Motion has been down since 12th November, and there is no doubt that the Government could have found time for an adequate debate on this important subject, particularly in a Session in which they are not over-pressed for work.
I want to deal simply with the problem which arises not among those who are employed on television but among those who are employed in the theatre. Different criteria arise. A young person employed in the theatre is likely to be in a long run if the play is successful.
There is a good example of this in Blackpool. The Blackpool Tower Company puts on a show every year which runs throughout the season. Children are employed in the show. Most of them live locally. Under the Regulations, they would be restricted to 79 days. It might be thought that that is sufficient. Over the last five years children so engaged have always been employed with the full consent of the local authority. The education authorities have decided that it was possible for the children to go to school and still go down and play at the Winter Garden at night. They appeared once a day for more than 79 days. The education authorities concerned asked Blackpool education authority to look after the children who came from areas outside Blackpool and ensure that they were all right. Those children were brought into schools in Blackpool. This is an example where flexibility has paid off up to now. Local education

authorities have looked after the welfare of the children and ensured that they did not suffer.
Now we in Westminster are being asked to say that children can appear for only 79 days. The Government would be well advised to take the Regulations back and agree that the system which has worked well over the last few years should continue to apply and that local education authorities should have the right to investigate, supervise and ensure that children are not put upon. Local education authorities should be given the flexibility which is so important. Once again, Westminster is saying that it knows best. Over the years there has been no great trouble for those who have appeared on the theatre stage. I ask the House to reject the Regulations, thus giving the flexibility which is so important.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) made a moving plea on behalf of children who take part in performances. His concern, which we all share, is directed especially at the need to ensure that very young children who take part in performances should be adequately protected. The annulment of the Regulations would, ironically enough, achieve a result which would be precisely opposite to that which my hon. Friend seeks and would place in jeopardy the very children whom we all wish to protect.
The whole object of the Regulations is to protect child performers. The protection which the Regulations afford is substantial and very detailed. If my hon. Friend had not made these Regulations, none of these detailed safeguards would come into effect. This would mean, for instance, that children of any age could be employed for occasional performances, including occasional television performances, without any let or hindrance. It has been suggested that the Regulations would legalise the employment of even babies in television and other performances. This is not so. The question of what kinds of performances children may take part in and at what age depends entirely upon Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. It would be out of order if I were now to dissertate


upon the merits of the decision taken by Parliament in 1963, but I should make clear that Part II of the Act will come into full operation on 3rd March next year irrespective of the fate of these Regulations.
There has been some delay in bringing this provision in since it is, as it were, merely the skeleton of the new system for controlling performances by children, and it was essential to have extensive consultation with all those affected before making these Regulations, the purpose of which is to put flesh upon the bare bones of the statutory provisions and thus ensure that the new system for control ling performances by children is effective. Although the statutory provisions would operate after a fashion without any regulations at all, the result would be to deprive the children concerned, whose interests we all have at heart, of the necessary additional protection which the Regulations give.
I do not believe that it could seriously be suggested that we can do without any regulations at all. This would be fraught with danger for child performers, particularly those who are engaged occasion ally for television advertisements.
The issue before the House, therefore, is whether these Regulations are adequate. It has been known for many years that the existing law on performances by children fell short of modern needs, particularly in relation to performances for films and independent television. The provisions of Part II of the current Act, which provide a comprehensive system of licensing children of all ages up to school-leaving age to take part in performances of all kinds flows from the report of the Departmental Committee (known as the Bateson Committee) on the subject. A small ration of unlicensed performances, on not more than four days in any period of six months, is allowed, and children under 13 may be licensed to perform individual parts and to take part in musical and balletic performances.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: rose —

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry—no. Time is my enemy. My hon. Friend has been talking about it for six months. Surely, ten minutes is not too much for me now.
I should make clear, since there have been suggestions to the contrary, that the Labour Party, when in opposition, did not oppose the 1963 Act. Part II of the Act does not distinguish performances in television advertisements from any other film or television performances, and this position was accepted by both the main parties in 1963.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: We are here talking of the Regulations. Which bodies have approved them?

Mr. Morgan: I shall come to that. My hon. Friend has widely circulated a letter seeking support for his Prayer. I and my predecessor have made patient attempts to explain to him the effect of the Regulations and their relationship to the Statute under which they are made. I regret that, despite these explanations, my hon. Friend still repeats a number of misconceptions, which largely vitiate his argument. He has seen fit to circularise these to all hon. Members and has repeated most of them in his speech to night.
If time allowed, I should be glad to comment on all the points my hon. Friend raised. He has implied that those who have studied the matter agree that the Government are wrong in proceeding with the Regulations. Let us look at the facts. We have had extensive consultations with a large number of interested bodies. Only one of them, Equity, suggested that no regulations should be made until the statute law had been strengthened. All the other bodies concerned with children's education and welfare agreed that these Regulations ought to be made, and several of them pressed for this to be done as soon as possible.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is totally untrue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to intervene in the debate by rising to a point of order.

Mr. Morgan: The local authority associations, the Association of Education Committees, the Inner London Education Authority and the National Union of Teachers have all expressed themselves as in general satisfied with the regulations. They take that view because they


appreciate the true significance and effect of the Regulations, which, in my sub mission, mark a considerable advance on the present situation and will much increase the protection which we afford children taking part in performances.

Mr. John Mendelson: What about the T.U.C.?

Mr. Morgan: I will come to that.
Next, my hon. Friend suggested that the Regulations
… would have the effect of legalising the present illegal employment of children.
I have already explained that that is not true. The Regulations do precisely the opposite. They restrict the amount of performing which children would other wise be legally free to undertake.
My hon. Friend then says that the Regulations would permit unlicensed employment. They do no such thing. It is the Statute, and he well knows it, which permits a very small number of days' unlicensed employment.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Read the Regulations.

Mr. Morgan: The rô le of the Regulations is to ensure that excessive hours are not worked on those days.
The note attached to my hon. Friend's letter repeats the statement that the Regulations permit the employment of children of any age. They do not. Their whole effect is restrictive.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the fact that in a number of respects the T.U.C. would have liked the Regulations to be more restrictive. This does not mean that the T.U.C. did not want any Regulations to be made. On the contrary, it recognised that the new provisions would much increase the protection afforded to child performers.
As against the T.U.C.'s view that in some respects the Regulations should be tighter, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had to balance the representations from entertainment interests that the Regulations were unnecessarily tight, against the views of the bodies I have mentioned. There were irreconcilable differences of view on some issues, but much of what is in the Regulations proved generally acceptable.
The House should bear in mind that under the present system the Inner

London Education Authority and the L.C.C. before it—and my hon. Friend was a member of that body—was in the habit of issuing licences for up to 180 days a year. The maximum under the Regulations for children over 13 is 80 days a year, and under the age of 13 it is 40 days a year.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. This is gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use a point of order to intervene in the debate.

Mr. Morgan: I hope that my hon. Friend can take it.
He suggests that Part IV of the Regulations will alow children under school age to perform up to 10 p.m., and that Part V will enable children of any age to be required to do night work. This completely overlooks the fact that a licensing authority may not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the child is fit to take part in the proposed performances, that proper provision has been made to secure his health and kind treatment, and, if he is of school age, that his education will not suffer. This. I believe, is the only occasion in any statutory instrument where the words "kind" or "kindness" appear. There is no question of a licence being created for work which a local authority thinks will be harmful to the child concerned.
The protection in the Regulations is additional to the basic safeguard provided by the need to obtain a licence. The maximum number of days on which a child may perform under licence in any period of 12 months is limited, and there are detailed safeguards for the child's health, education and welfare. These cover such matters as arrangements for education, safeguarding of earnings, the appointment of matrons to look after the child, inspection and approval of places of performance or rehearsal and of lodgings, restrictions on other employment while performing and so on. The permitted amounts of work in each week and each day in the various kinds of performances, the length of the working week, the maximum period at a place of performance or rehearsal and the maximum performing time each day, the


minimum night interval, meal breaks and so on are laid down in detail.
My hon. Friend has campaigned on the issue, both in the House and outside, with evangelical fervour. I respect his sincerity and appreciate his great experience in the matter, since he has for many years been an official of Equity.
But his burning zeal is misconceived, in that he has concentrated on the theory of the system over the past 35 years rather than the practice. It is also mis- directed in that he has tilted his lance at the windmill of the Regulations rather than at the castle of the 1963 Act.

11.30 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I protest most strongly at the way in which this most important debate has been telescoped into this ridiculously short time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question forth with pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (Procedure)).

The House proceeded to a Division —

Mr. Edwin Brooks(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that on an earlier occasion when a Prayer was being discussed concerning the amalgamation of police forces in the Thames Valley, when considerably more time had been made available for the debate than has been made available for the Prayer this evening, Mr. Speaker ruled that inadequate time had been given for the discussion and the debate was resumed on a later occasion. In view of the extreme lack of time available for this debate, may I ask whether the Chair would consider that there might be a case for deferring the Motion for further dis- cussion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman will find that the time has varied very considerably as required by the Chair for the adequacy of debate. The Chair on this occasion is exercising the discretion required to be exercised by Standing Order 100, and the decision must stand.

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 117.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Alldritt, Walter
Hooson, Emlyn
Pavitt, Laurence


Archer, Peter
Huckfiled, Leslie
Percival, Ian


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Beaney, Alan
Jeger,Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bidwell, Sydney
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pym, Francis


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Judd, Frank
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Richard, Ivor


Carlisle, Mark
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kershaw, Anthony
Rose, Paul


Channon, H. P. G.
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Currie, G. B. H.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lubbock, Eric
Tinn, James


Dickens, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Driberg, Tom
Mackintosh, John p.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunn, James A.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ellis, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Whitaker, Ben


Faulds, Andrew
Manuel, Archie
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Wilkins, W. A.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Miscampbell, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Molloy, William
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ford, Ben
Monro, Hector
Woof, Robert


Glover, Sir Douglas
Murray, Albert
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Newens, Stan



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hazell, Bert
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Albert Booth and


Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James Allason.


Hill, J. E. B.






NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Fernyhough, E.
Oswald, Thomas


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Parker, John (Dagentham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerry
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Barnett, Joel
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Pentland, Norman


Bitten, John
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Boyden, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hannan, William
Price, William (Rugby)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Haseldine, Norman
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,w.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchan, Norman
Howie, W.
Sheldon, Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Carmichael Neil
Hynd, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Slater, Joseph


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snow, Julian


Conlan, Bernard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Taverne, Dick


Cronin, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Thornton, Ernest


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Urwin, T. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lomas, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
McBride, Neil
Watkins, David (Consett)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McCann, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Davies, Dr Ernest (Stretford)
MacColl, James
Weitzman, David


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGuire, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Mackie, John
Whitlock, William


Dell, Edmund
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Dewar, Donald
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Dobson, Ray
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Dunnett, Jack
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



English, Michael
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ennals, David
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ensor, David
Oram, Albert E.
Dr. Miller.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Motion made, and Question put forth with, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sit-

tings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended—[Mr. McBride].

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 30.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Coe, Denis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allen, Scholefield
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Anderson, Donald
Cronin, John
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Archer, Peter
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Ford, Ben


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Forrester, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fowler, Gerry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Barnes, Michael
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Barnett, Joel
Dell, Edmund
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Beaney, Alan
Dewar, Donald
Gregory, Arnold


Bidwell, Sydney
Dickens, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bishop, E. S.
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Beardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Booth, Albert
Driberg, Tom
Harper, Joseph


Boyden, James
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Haseldine, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hazell, Bert


Brooks, Edwin
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ellis, John
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
English, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Ennals, David
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ensor, David
Howie, W.


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hynd, John


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fernyhough, E.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)




Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Newens, Stan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Skeffington, Arthur


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Slater, Joseph


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orbach, Maurice
Snow, Julian


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie


Kenyon, Clifford
Oswald, Thomas
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Owen, Or. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Stodart, Anthony


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Taverns, Dick


Lever, L. M, (Ardwick)
Pardoe, John
Tinn, James


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Urwin, T. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


Loughlin, Charles
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lubbock, Eric
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


McCann, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Macdonald, A. H.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackie, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Weitzman, David


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitaker, Ben


Mallalieu, E. L, (Brigg)
Probert, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Manuel, Archie
Rees, Merlyn
Whittock, William


Mapp, Charles
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Marks, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mendelson, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Millan, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, s.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Winnick, David


Molloy, William
Roebuck, Roy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Moorman, Eric
Rose, Paul
Woof, Robert


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Murray, Albert
Sheldon, Robert
Dr. Miller.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tilney, John


Biffen, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.w.)
MacArthur, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Currie, G. B. H.
Pym, Francis
Younger, Hn. George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Cower, Raymond
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, J. E. B.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)
Mr. Crowder and


Kershaw, Anthony
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. Robert Cooke.


Kitson, Timothy

Orders of the Day — RESIDENTIAL ROADS, WEMBLEY (THROUGH-TRAFFIC)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Harper].

11.49 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: The subject which I wish to raise on the Adjournment is that of through traffic using narrow residential roads in Wembley. I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for being here to reply to my remarks.
This is not the first time that I have raised this problem in the House. The first occasion was on 2nd March, 1960, when the debate was replied to by the then Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I am happy to say that two of the problems which I raised then have since

been solved, but the third has not. That is the problem of Carlyon Road and Longley Avenue, on the Abbey Estate, Wembley, which are being used as a through road between Ealing Road and the North Circular Road, thus avoiding the junction of Ealing Road with the North Circular Road at Hanger Hill. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that I had some correspondence with the former Minister of State on this subject in July and August this year.
The protests at the use of this route by through traffic began 10 years ago, when Wembley Borough Council received two petitions from the residents. The traffic started, I think, because of the delays caused at the junction of Hanger Lane with Western Avenue when the underpass was being built. I raised the matter in the House on 2nd March, 1960, and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said that the problem would


be looked at again when the Hanger Lane underpass had been completed.
Later that year, another petition was presented. In September 1960, the Wembley Council decided to make representations to the Ministry of Trans port to ban through traffic. Between 1962 and 1964 various applications were made by the Council for weight restrictions to be imposed on these roads, but each time they were refused by the Ministry.
In November 1965, the Brent Council asked for approval to close Queensbury Road, one of the roads on the estate, to prevent Longley Avenue being used as a through road. Therefore, it was quite wrong for the former Minister of State to say, as he did in the fourth paragraph of his letter of 20th August this year, that Brent Borough Council saw no reason to impose weight restrictions. The facts are quite the contrary.
There is also the problem of the narrowness not only of Longley Avenue, which is only 20–22 ft. wide, but of Carlyon Road where it passes under the arch of the bridge carrying the Piccadilly line over it. There is great danger for pedestrians on the narrow footpath at that point and concern is felt by the Brent Borough Council. The council could make a footpath through the next arch, but I understand that that would be costly. I shall be grateful if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can comment on that, even if not tonight.
I gather that in the evenings cars sometimes wait bumper-to-bumper in Carlyon Road travelling north-westwards trying to get out into Ealing Road, where there are no traffic signals. Personally, I would rather wait at a junction with traffic signals than endure the awful agony of trying to push out into a continuous stream where there are no signals. Some people, however, think otherwise.
This year, something happened which, it was hoped, would improve the situation, namely, the installation of traffic signals at the junction of Heather Park Drive and the North Circular Road. This, it was hoped, would make it easier to use this route than go through the Abbey Estate and, therefore, would take some traffic away from the Abbey Estate. Some people, I understand, think that it

has made a difference and that there is less traffic. Others think that there has been no change and no effect.
I would like to point out that whereas the installation of those traffic lights, making the route Ealing Road—Lyon Park Avenue—Heather Park Drive easier than before—obviously, it helps traffic from high up in Ealing Road—it would have no effect on traffic coming from Bridgewater Road, as anybody can tell by looking at a map. I am sorry that one cannot display a map in this Chamber to make arguments like this more realistic.
Then there is the question of weight regulations which I have already mentioned. I obtained from the Greater London Council orders containing all the weight restrictions which have been imposed, both under the G.L.C. and its predecessors, in recent years. They must run into several hundreds, and are quite heavy to carry about. There are two for nearby roads in Ealing, Clevelys Crescent and Lytham Grove, which are in the apex between the Abbey Estate and the North Circular Road-Ealing Road junction. They are in S.I. 825 of 1960. I am wondering whether similar weight restrictions could be imposed for roads in the Abbey Estate.
I ask the Minister what plans he has for improving the capacity of the junctions of the North Circular Road with Western Avenue and the North Circular Road with Ealing Road—they are close together—which I think are the cause of the trouble.
I have heard reports of a new scheme for traffic signals at the junction of Abbeydale Road with the North Circular Road and Iveagh Avenue in the Borough of Ealing, on the Nirth Circular Road, which would provide almost a crossing, may be a slight T junction, from Ealing, on the south side of the North Circular, to the north side, and take more traffic through the Abbey Estate. I hope that this is not correct. If it is I hope there will be weight limits on heavy lorries—unless they are visiting the Esate: I agree that there are some factories on the Estate and that they may need lorries to carry their goods in and out. However, I hope something may be done to spread the load and that it will not all be using Longley Avenue. There are seven roads


in parallel with Longley Avenue and they might take some of the load. I hope that if this scheme is being thought of, consideration will be given to the people who live in the narrow roads on this Estate as well as to the through traffic.
I turn now to two other roads where a similar problem is being experienced, namely, Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road, which are being used as slip roads between Bridgewater Road and Manor Farm Road. Burnside Crescent is rather like Longley Avenue, about 20 ft. wide. There are always some cars parked in it, because most of the houses have no garages, and it is wholly unsuitable for through traffic. I gather that a few months ago a coach driver tried to drive his coach through it and took twenty minutes to get through. Clifford Road is not so narrow, but it is residential road and not intended for through traffic.
There are no traffic signals at the junction with Bridgewater Road and Manor Farm Road, and I wonder whether the Minister would approve the installation of traffic signals there, operated in conjunction with the existing signals at Bridgewater Road—Ealing Road junction. I would ask him to couple with the possible widening of the road "Cross Now" signals for pedestrians. Such signals should be on the north side of the junction. That would help pedestrians going to their shopping area and to Alperton Station from Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road and Manor Farm Road. If the junctions could be improved traffic would be attracted away from Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road, and possibly those two roads could be partially blocked to deter through traffic altogether, as has been done in other parts of Brent, both in Wembley and Willesden.
The third problem I wish to raise is somewhat different and affects three roads named Fernbank Road, Rosebank Road and Maybank Avenue. They form a "Y" and are used by traffic wishing to dodge the traffic lights at the junction of Green-ford Road and Harrow Road, and this causes these roads to be used as a race track. I received complaints about this earlier this year.
None of these roads is quite as narrow as those I mentioned previously, but they are lined with parked cars, like so many suburban residential streets the houses in which were built without garages. Speeding in these roads is dangerous at any time, but particularly when children are about. I appreciate that this problem exists in varying degrees in almost every city, including Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It occurs where I live in St. Johns Wood, although the streets are somewhat wider and are therefore not as dangerous.
But in Wembley the roads are extremely narrow and that is why I have raised this problem tonight. I would be grateful for any advice and help that the Minister can give to relieve this problem in the Borough of Wembley.

12.1 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I thank the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) for raising this matter in such concise terms. He will not expect me at this time to give him a fully detailed reply, although I assure him that if I do not reply to some of the points he raised now, I will correspond with him about them.
As the hon. Gentleman said—although he raised the issue on a constituency basis—this matter is not confined to South Wembley or Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West. Every hon. Member who represents an urban area could have used his powerful advocacy simply by substituting different street names.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the previous occasion on which he raised this matter. At that time the main difficulty was being caused by the construction of the Hanger Lane underpass in Western Avenue. This underpass has now been completed and extensive investigations have been made of traffic problems in the vicinity. Some of these problems will be mitigated by programmed improvement schemes along the North Circular Road. These will allow for greater freedom of movement for through traffic and include the improvement of the junctions at Iveagh Avenue and Twyford Abbey Road and the widening of the Hanger Lane Railway Bridge.
However, the continuing problem to which he referred is one to which there is no comprehensive and satisfactory


answer. I would be wrong—indeed, I would be stating a deliberate untruth—to suggest that there was a complete and satisfactory answer to this problem. On the one hand I can sympathise with the man who resides in what was a quiet residential street but which has become used by drivers as an alternative to a busy traffic route. On the other, I can sympathise with the driver—often I am in this position—who, frustrated by delay due to congestion of his normal routes, seeks and finds an alternative route which avoids the congestion.
Such a case is well illustrated by Clifford Road and Burnside Crescent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The driver who wants to get from Bridgewater Road to the Western Avenue by the main route may be held up by the traffic lights at the junction with Ealing Road and then by the congested junctions of Hanger Lane with the North Circular Road and of Hanger Lane with Western Avenue. A glance at the map will show how to avoid these junctions, and some drivers who have done their homework by looking at their maps may have concluded that Manor Farm Drive and Alperton Lane provide not only a shorter route but probably a quicker one as well. This is an example of a voluntary diversion, as are the other roads quoted by the hon. Gentleman. But it is an undeniable fact that the traffic light dodger will find the easiest course on which to drive, and how we get over this is a matter of making major improvements to our through routes.
There are often occasions when a diversion from a main traffic route to an alternative route traversing residential streets is enforced by the highway or traffic authority or by the police. This may occur in an emergency, or to relieve the traffic on the through route when road works are in progress. A diversion may also be a feature of a traffic management scheme the purpose of which is to relieve congestion on the route by one way circulation of traffic.
The question is simply one of making the best use that is possible of our existing public roads—because they are public roads—roads which the public have the right to use. Because the public has this right, it cannot be taken away unless there be very good and compelling reasons. The highway authority I am

sure, would feel itself entitled to do so if the diversion route were patently unsuitable for use by large volumes of additional traffic. But this is a matter for decision by the local highway authority and, in Greater London, by the Greater London Council as traffic authority.
Powers are available enabling these authorities to take whichever remedy they consider to be correct in the circumstances. Here I will make one point which may give some comfort to the hon. Member and his constituents for whom he speaks. These traffic regulation powers are derived from Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, an Act which consolidated earlier powers. It has always been clear that these powers could be used to promote the safety and the flow of traffic. But—and it is an important but—it has been doubtful whether they could properly be used for amenity purposes.
Let us be clear about the reasons which prompted the hon. Member to speak tonight as he has spoken before on similar lines. He and his constituents who live in residential streets are most certainly concerned that these streets are safe and convenient, both for those who live in them and for the trades people who deliver goods to the residents. But, above all, they wish to be able to enjoy the amenity of living in a street which does not suffer from the noise and fumes and general disturbance and discomfort caused by the passage of through traffic, in other words, they are chiefly concerned with a loss of amenity.
As I have said, there have been doubts whether powers to regulate traffic could properly be used in the interest of amenity. We have recently removed that doubt. We took the opportunity of including in the Transport Act, 1968, a provision which makes it quite clear that the purpose for which a local highway or traffic authority—in this case the Greater London Council—will be able to impose a restriction on a road include preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs. We anticipate that this provision will come into force in the early Spring of 1969.
It will then be for the Greater London Council—no doubt prompted by local highway authorities—to consider whether the power should be used in particular


cases. The cases which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned may well receive the consideration for which he is hoping. We must recognise, however, that the power must be used with discretion. A regulation will quickly fall into discredit if it is not enforced. When the hon. Gentleman raised this issue in 1960, his colleague in the then Government mentioned this precise point.
Exceptions to the regulations may be necessary to enable drivers of heavy vehicles to go about their legitimate duties in the restricted roads, e.g. for deliveries of coal, fuel oil, etc. More over, the banning of heavy vehicles from one road may only divert them to other roads or routes where the difficulties may be still more acute. Thus the new powers must not be considered as a cure-all but merely a tool that can be used in suitable cases.
I have a warning here for the hon. Gentleman. Although some of constituents are clearly suffering discomfort, if the Council were to make a snap decision about a solution, more of them might be inconvenienced than the number that would be helped.
We sympathise with those whose enjoyment of the quiet surroundings of a house in a residential road is marred when that road is used as a through route. We have shown our concern by promoting the extension of the powers to impose restrictions for amenity purposes. We are pressing on with our road improvement and construction programmes but, until such time as the improvements can be carried out in particular areas it may not be practicable in many cases to ban non-local traffic from residential roads. This is a matter for careful judgment by the traffic and highway authorities.
The hon. Member mentioned the junction of Iveagh Avenue with the North Circular Road. Traffic lights are to be installed here to provide for the safe movement of traffic from the trunk road to the Park Royal Industrial Estate. We expect this scheme to start in February next year. The improvement at the junction of Hanger Lane, the North Circular and Twyford Abbey Road will improve the signal-controlled junction of Hanger Lane with the North Circular Road and

prevent north-bound traffic on the trunk road turning right into Twyford Abbey to get to the Park Royal Industrial Estate. This will follow the installation of the traffic signals at Iveagh Avenue.
The widening of Hanger Lane railway bridge will provide two extra lanes in the trunk road, one in each direction, between the two signal controlled junctions North Circular—Western Avenue and North Circular—Hanger Lane. This also is expected to start next year.
Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road lie to the west in Bridgewater Road, the A.4005, just north of the junction with Ealing Road, the A.4089. Together with Manor Farm Road and Alperton Lane they form a convenient route between Bridgewater Road and Western Avenue, so avoiding three junctions, namely Bridgewater Road—Ealing Road, Hanger Lane—North Circular and North Circular—Western Avenue.
The main through route via Ealing Road and Hanger Lane will be improved by the schemes that I have mentioned and by the improved traffic control signals which the G.L.C. propose to instal at the Bridgewater Road—Ealing Road junction. The scheme to which I have just referred is expected to start in 1969.
Maybank Avenue, Fernbank Avenue and Rosebank Avenue form a bypass between the Harrow Road—A.404—and Greenford Road—A.4127—avoiding, of course, the staggered junction of Green-ford Road and Sudbury Hill. This junction has recently been improved by traffic lights, to which the Ministry contributed £19,425 of the cost of £25,900.
I am told that the London Borough of Brent doubts whether this improvement will result in any decrease in the flow of traffic on the residential roads to which I have referred, but I am certain that when the powers to which I earlier referred come into effect early in the new year, the Brent Council will be looking at the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and will probably prompt the G.L.C. to put forward some scheme.

The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting at a quarter past Twelve o'clock till Ten o'clock this day.